Aff Nuclear Power Scholars 85

WNDI 2008 1
Nuclear Power Aff
Nuclear Power Aff

By Tweedledee & Tweedledum, a Turkey, a Cat, and Rachel
Nuclear Power Aff.......................................................................................................................................................1
Nuclear Power Aff..........................................................................................................................1
OB1: SQ......................................................................................................................................................................6
OB1: SQ..........................................................................................................................................6
Advantage – coal.........................................................................................................................................................7
Advantage – coal............................................................................................................................7
Advantage – coal.........................................................................................................................................................8
Advantage – coal............................................................................................................................8
Advantage – coal – warming......................................................................................................................................9
Advantage – coal – warming.........................................................................................................9
Advantage – coal – warming....................................................................................................................................10
Advantage – coal – warming.......................................................................................................10
Advantage – coal – economy....................................................................................................................................11
Advantage – coal – economy.......................................................................................................11
Advantage – nuclear power – cred/heg.....................................................................................................................12
Advantage – nuclear power – cred/heg......................................................................................12
Advantage – nuclear power – isotopes.....................................................................................................................13
Advantage – nuclear power – isotopes.......................................................................................13
Advantage – nuclear power – comp/heg...................................................................................................................16
Advantage – nuclear power – comp/heg....................................................................................16
Plan............................................................................................................................................................................17
Plan................................................................................................................................................17
OB2: Solvency..........................................................................................................................................................18
OB2: Solvency..............................................................................................................................18
OB2: Solvency..........................................................................................................................................................19
OB2: Solvency..............................................................................................................................19
OB2: Solvency..........................................................................................................................................................20
OB2: Solvency..............................................................................................................................20
No nuke power – not enough energy........................................................................................................................21
No nuke power – not enough energy..........................................................................................21
WNDI 2008 2
Nuclear Power Aff
No nuke power – decommission in 50 years............................................................................................................22

No nuke power – decommission in 50 years..............................................................................22
No nuke power – development abroad.....................................................................................................................23
No nuke power – development abroad.......................................................................................23
No nuke power – no planned reactors.......................................................................................................................24
No nuke power – no planned reactors........................................................................................24
No nuke power – laundry list....................................................................................................................................25
No nuke power – laundry list......................................................................................................25
Yes global nuke power..............................................................................................................................................26
Yes global nuke power.................................................................................................................26
Nuke power needed – electricity demand.................................................................................................................27
Nuke power needed – electricity demand..................................................................................27
Nuke power needed – conversation fails..................................................................................................................28
Nuke power needed – conversation fails....................................................................................28
Nuke power needed – coal coming...........................................................................................................................29
Nuke power needed – coal coming.............................................................................................29
Nuke power good – electricity – more efficient........................................................................................................30
Nuke power good – electricity – more efficient.........................................................................30
Nuke power good – laundry list................................................................................................................................32
Nuke power good – laundry list..................................................................................................32
Nuke power good – laundry list................................................................................................................................33
Nuke power good – laundry list..................................................................................................33
Nuke power good- environment...............................................................................................................................34
Nuke power good- environment..................................................................................................34
Loan Guarantees good – more $ needed...................................................................................................................35
Loan Guarantees good – more $ needed....................................................................................35
Loan guarantees good...............................................................................................................................................36
Loan guarantees good..................................................................................................................36
Loan guarantees good...............................................................................................................................................37
Loan guarantees good..................................................................................................................37
Proliferation– Uniqueness.........................................................................................................................................38
Proliferation– Uniqueness...........................................................................................................38
Proliferation- US Solves...........................................................................................................................................40
Proliferation- US Solves..............................................................................................................40
Proliferation- US Solves...........................................................................................................................................41
Proliferation- US Solves..............................................................................................................41
WNDI 2008 3
Nuclear Power Aff
Coal Advantage-Laundry List .................................................................................................................................42

Coal Advantage-Laundry List ..................................................................................................42
Coal Advantage-Transportation................................................................................................................................44
Coal Advantage-Transportation.................................................................................................44
Coal Advantage- Kills Fish.......................................................................................................................................45
Coal Advantage- Kills Fish..........................................................................................................45
Coal Advantage-Acid Rain.......................................................................................................................................46
Coal Advantage-Acid Rain..........................................................................................................46
Coal Advantage- Acid Rain.......................................................................................................................................47
Coal Advantage- Acid Rain.........................................................................................................47
Coal Advantage- Uranium........................................................................................................................................48
Coal Advantage- Uranium..........................................................................................................48
Coal Advantage- Green House Gases.......................................................................................................................49
Coal Advantage- Green House Gases.........................................................................................49
Coal Advantage- Mercury.........................................................................................................................................51
Coal Advantage- Mercury...........................................................................................................51
Coal Mining- Biodiversity........................................................................................................................................52
Coal Mining- Biodiversity...........................................................................................................52
Coal Advantage- Will Run Out.................................................................................................................................53
Coal Advantage- Will Run Out...................................................................................................53
Yes peak coal – US – 5 years ago.............................................................................................................................54
Yes peak coal – US – 5 years ago................................................................................................54
Yes peak coal – 15 years...........................................................................................................................................57
Yes peak coal – 15 years...............................................................................................................57
Coal bad – China ......................................................................................................................................................58
Coal bad – China .........................................................................................................................58
Coal bad – China.......................................................................................................................................................59
Coal bad – China..........................................................................................................................59
Peak coal bad – cheap coal/mining...........................................................................................................................60
Peak coal bad – cheap coal/mining.............................................................................................60
Peak coal bad – cheap coal/mining...........................................................................................................................61
Peak coal bad – cheap coal/mining.............................................................................................61
WNDI 2008 4
Nuclear Power Aff
Yes peak coal – rapid use..........................................................................................................................................62

Yes peak coal – rapid use.............................................................................................................62
Coal bad – econ.........................................................................................................................................................63
Coal bad – econ............................................................................................................................63
Coal Bad- Must change ways....................................................................................................................................64
Coal Bad- Must change ways......................................................................................................64
Hegemony- Nuclear Energy Key..............................................................................................................................65
Hegemony- Nuclear Energy Key................................................................................................65
Hegemony- Nuclear Energy Key..............................................................................................................................66
Hegemony- Nuclear Energy Key................................................................................................66
International Competition- Europe ahead.................................................................................................................67
International Competition- Europe ahead................................................................................67
International Competition- Nuclear Energy Key......................................................................................................68
International Competition- Nuclear Energy Key.....................................................................68
Radiopharmaceuticals- Nuclear Energy Key............................................................................................................69
Radiopharmaceuticals- Nuclear Energy Key............................................................................69
Radiopharmaceuticals- Solve Laundry List..............................................................................................................70
Radiopharmaceuticals- Solve Laundry List..............................................................................70
Radiopharmaceuticals- Solve Laundry List..............................................................................................................71
Radiopharmaceuticals- Solve Laundry List..............................................................................71
Radiopharmaceuticals- Solves Laundry List............................................................................................................72
Radiopharmaceuticals- Solves Laundry List............................................................................72
A2: Storage...............................................................................................................................................................73
A2: Storage...................................................................................................................................73
A2: Storage...............................................................................................................................................................74
A2: Storage...................................................................................................................................74
A2: Storage...............................................................................................................................................................75
A2: Storage...................................................................................................................................75
A2: Renewable Energy Sources................................................................................................................................76
A2: Renewable Energy Sources..................................................................................................76
A2: Accidents/Radiation...........................................................................................................................................77
A2: Accidents/Radiation..............................................................................................................77
WNDI 2008 5
Nuclear Power Aff
A2: Uranium Supply.................................................................................................................................................80

A2: Uranium Supply....................................................................................................................80
A2: Terrorism............................................................................................................................................................81
A2: Terrorism...............................................................................................................................81
A2: Terrorism............................................................................................................................................................82
A2: Terrorism...............................................................................................................................82
A2: Greenhouse Gases..............................................................................................................................................83
A2: Greenhouse Gases.................................................................................................................83
A2: Cost Efficiency...................................................................................................................................................84
A2: Cost Efficiency......................................................................................................................84
A2: Warming/Climate...............................................................................................................................................85
A2: Warming/Climate.................................................................................................................85
FYI: Nuclear Reactors..............................................................................................................................................88
FYI: Nuclear Reactors.................................................................................................................88
WNDI 2008 6
Nuclear Power Aff
OB1: SQ
Growth in electricity demand is inevitable – base-load requirements can only be met by
building more coal-fired plants, or expanding nuclear power
Fred Bosselman, Professor of Law Emeritus, Chicago-Kent College of Law, “The New Power Generation:
Environmental Law and Electricity Innovation: Colloquium Article: The Ecological Advantages of Nuclear Power,”
New York University Environmental Law Journal, 2007, LexisNexis. [HBP]
Predicting the amount of demand for new electricity generation is difficult, but it is easy to predict that
there will be at least some demand over the next decade. In this section, I argue that: (A) electricity demand
requires that electric utilities have access to several different types of power plants, including plants
that can provide reliable "base-load" capacity; (B) even with dramatic improvements in energy
conservation and efficiency, there will be a need for some substantial amount of new generating
capacity; (C) generating plants powered by natural gas, wind, solar, or water will not be able to produce
reliable base-load power within that time; and (D) no new technologies are likely to change these
conclusions within the next decade. To meet the demand for base-load power, the choice is between coal
and nuclear power. Electric utilities need to be able to have access to a "portfolio" of different types of generating plants.
Because electricity cannot be stored on a large scale, power generators must continually produce
power as it is consumed. Some users of electric power produce a relatively constant and predictable
demand for electricity, and this amount is known as "base-load." Electric utilities need reliable
generation sources with low operating costs for meeting base-load needs. Base-load power plants run
virtually without interruption to supply the continuous portion of electricity needs, as compared to the needs
that expand and contract seasonally or diurnally. Base-load plants are often called "must-run" plants, because they
will run for as long as possible at full load, and will produce the lowest overall power-generating costs
for this type of use. Today, many observers consider coal and nuclear power to be the only reliable
future sources of base-load power. An electric utility's portfolio will also include different sources of power that meet other, equally
important, needs. While base-load is fairly constant, electric utilities must be prepared for the times of the day and year when the demand for electricity
increases. Generating plants that cycle on and off to address those variations are known as "intermediate load" plants. They usually have a higher operating
cost but can be started up and shut down relatively quickly. Demand for electricity is influenced by many different factors, including the weather, the
strength of the economy, the price of electricity, and the use of high-demand equipment and buildings. The history of the last fifty years has provided many
examples of over-and under-estimation of demand growth, but no evidence of any decline in demand for any multi-year period. The hot summer of 2006
provided a test of the ability to make even short-run predictions of energy demand. California, having experienced severe shortages of electricity in 2000-
2001, had instituted programs to cut back on demand and increase supply that decision makers thought equipped the state to face future hot summers, but
the summer of 2006 forced various businesses to close at peak periods and severely strained the transmission network. Conservation programs to reduce
electricity demand can be divided into two categories: (1) conservation programs that shift more electricity usage out of periods of peak usage and into
times when demand is less (often called "peak-shaving"); and (2) efficiency-enhancing programs that reduce the total amount of electricity used, such as
programs to require more efficient appliances or to mandate higher temperatures in air-conditioned buildings. Both types of demand management are being
used in various places. Insofar as the choice of the type of power plant to build is concerned, the peak-shaving programs and the efficient usage programs
have differing effects on that decision. Both should reduce the overall amount of new generating capacity needed, but peak-shaving will result in an increase
in base-load plants' share of overall generating capacity, because the usage removed from peak periods will be transferred to times when base-load plants are
needed. Other efficient-usage programs may not have any major impact on the choice of the type of power plant to be constructed. Because Congress has
mandated peak-shaving, and many industries are eager to adopt it, peak-shaving programs are likely to help tilt the choice of new facilities toward base-load
plants. California's efforts to encourage energy conservation focused on incentives for the more efficient use of electricity on a daily and yearly basis by
smoothing out the demand for electricity and reducing peak needs. These have succeeded in persuading some users of electrical equipment to shift from
using it on hot summer afternoons, when demand for air conditioning is at its peak, to night time when demand is low, substantially reducing the ratio of
peak to base-load demand. In the short run, much of this conservation will be created by the trend toward the use of "smart meters." A "smart meter" knows
how much power you are using each hour of each day, and communicates the information back to the power company. This makes it practical for an electric
utility to charge higher rates for the use of electricity during peak hours, which in turn gives the customer an incentive to schedule the use of electricity at
times of lower demand - an incentive that is lacking when meters register only gross monthly use. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 requires all electric
utilities to make time-of-use rates available to all customers by 2007. As electricity rates increase, the use of equipment that uses less electricity overall, not
just at peak periods, will likely increase. When energy prices rose in the 1970s, an increased demand for such equipment was a definite factor in reducing
the rate of increase in annual demand for electricity. Even larger price increases might induce the government to impose mandatory requirements for more
efficient refrigeration and air conditioning, but it is hard to envision such requirements having a major impact during the next decade, given the time needed
even if demand for electricity stayed the same
to set standards, manufacture the equipment, and begin selling and using it. Finally,
for the next decade, there would be a need for new generating plants. Tighter air pollution controls are
scheduled to be phased in within that period, and the prospect of controls on greenhouse gas emissions
will force plant owners to give more serious consideration to replacing aging plants with new ones. In
sum, for the purposes of this article, I am not concerned with demonstrating how many new power plants will
be needed, but only that some substantial number will be needed. Wall Street seems to agree because
159 new coal-fired generating plants are being proposed at various places in the United States.
WNDI 2008 7
Nuclear Power Aff
Advantage – coal
Advantage one: peak coal
US coal production has already peaked – the most recent studies conclude that remaining
reserves are of LOW QUALITY and impossible to mine. Global coal reserves face a similar
fate, and will peak within 15 years
Richard Heinberg, Core Faculty member of New College of California and a Fellow of the Post Carbon Institute,
widely regarded as one of the world's foremost Peak Oil educators. “Peak coal: sooner than you think,” Energy
Bulletin, May 21 2007 http://www.energybulletin.net/node/29919
Coal provides over a quarter of the world's primary energy needs and generates 40 per cent of the world's electricity. Two thirds of
global steel production depends on coal. Global consumption of coal is growing faster than that of oil or natural
gas - a reverse of the situation in earlier decades. From 2000 to 2005, coal extraction expanded at an average of 4.8 per cent per year
compared to 1.6 per cent per year for oil: although world natural gas consumption had been racing ahead in past years, in 2005 it
actually fell slightly. Looking to the future, many analysts who are concerned about emerging supply constraints for oil and gas foresee a
compensating shift to lower-quality fuels. Coal can be converted to a gaseous or liquid fuel, and coal gasification and coal-to-liquids
plants are being constructed at record rates. This expanded use of coal is worrisome to advocates of policies to protect the global climate,
some of whom place great hopes in new (mostly untested) technologies to capture and sequester carbon from coal gasification. With or
without such technologies, there will almost certainly be more coal in our near future. According to the widely accepted
view, at current production levels proven coal reserves will last 155 years (this according to the World Coal
Institute). The US Department of Energy (USDoE) projects annual global coal consumption to grow 2.5 per cent a year through 2030, by
which time world consumption will be nearly double that of today. A startling report: less than we thought! However, future
scenarios for global coal consumption are cast into doubt by two recent European studies on world
coal supplies. The first, Coal: Resources and Future Production (PDF 630KB), published on April 5 by the Energy Watch
Group, which reports to the German Parliament, found that global coal production could peak in as few as 15
years. This astonishing conclusion was based on a careful analysis of recent reserves revisions for
several nations. The report's authors (Werner Zittel and JÃ¶rg Schindler) note that, with regard to global coal reserves, "the
data quality is very unreliable", especially for China, South Asia, and the Former Soviet Union countries. Some nations (such as
Vietnam) have not updated their proved reserves for decades, in some instances not since the 1960s. China's last update was in 1992;
since then, 20 per cent of its reserves have been consumed, though this is not revealed in official figures. However, since 1986 all
nations with significant coal resources (except India and Australia) that have made the effort to update their
reserves estimates have reported substantial downward revisions. Some countries - including Botswana,
Germany, and the UK - have downgraded their reserves by more than 90 per cent. Poland's reserves are now 50 per
cent smaller than was the case 20 years ago. These downgrades cannot be explained by volumes produced during
this period. The best explanation, say the EWG report's authors, is that nations now have better data from more
thorough surveys. If that is the case, then future downward revisions are likely from countries that still rely
on decades-old reserves estimates. Altogether, the world's reserves of coal have dwindled from 10 trillion tons of hard coal
equivalent to 4.2 trillion tons in 2005 - a 60 per cent downward revision in 25 years. China (the world's primary consumer) and the US
(the nation with the largest reserves) are keys to the future of coal. China reports 55 years of coal reserves at current consumption rates.
Subtracting quantities consumed since 1992, the last year reserves figures were updated, this declines to 40 to 45 years. However, the
calculation assumes constant rates of usage, which is unrealistic since consumption is increasing rapidly. Already China has shifted from
being a minor coal exporter to being a net coal importer. Moreover, we must factor in the peaking phenomenon common to the
extraction of all non-renewable resources (the peak of production typically occurs long before the resource is exhausted). The EWG
report's authors, taking these factors into account, state: "it is likely that China will experience peak production within the next 5-15
years, followed by a steep decline." Only if China's reported coal reserves are in reality much larger than reported will Chinese coal
production rates not peak "very soon" and fall rapidly. The United States is the world's second-largest producer, surpassing the two next
important producer states (India and Australia) by nearly a factor of three. Its reserves are so large that America has been called "the
Saudi Arabia of coal". The US has already passed its peak of production for high-quality coal (from the
Appalachian Mountains and the Illinois basin) and has seen production of bituminous coal decline since 1990.
However, growing extraction of sub-bituminous coal in Wyoming has more than compensated for this. Taking reserves into account,
the EWG concludes that growth in total volumes can continue for 10 to 15 years. However, in terms of
energy content US coal production peaked in 1998 at 598 million tons of oil equivalents (Mtoe); by 2005 this had fallen
to 576 Mtoe. Confirmation: a second study The EWG study so contradicts widespread assumptions about future
coal supplies that most energy analysts would probably prefer to ignore it. However, an even more
recent study, The Future of Coal, by B. Kavalov and S. D. Peteves of the Institute for Energy (IFE), prepared for European
Commission Joint Research Centre and not yet published, reaches similar conclusions. Unlike the EWG team, Kavalov and
Peteves do not attempt to forecast a peak in production. Future supply is discussed in terms of the familiar but often misleading reserves-
< HEINBERG CONTINUES NEXT PAGE 1/2>
WNDI 2008 8
Nuclear Power Aff
Advantage – coal
<HEINBERG CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE 2/2>

to-production (R/P) ratio. Nevertheless, the IFG's conclusions broadly confirm the EWG report. The
three primary take-away
conclusions from the newer study are as follows: "world proven reserves (i.e. the reserves that are
economically recoverable at current economic and operating conditions) of coal are decreasing fast";
"the bulk of coal production and exports is getting concentrated within a few countries and market players, which creates the risk of
market imperfections"; and "coal production costs are steadily rising all over the world, due to the need to
develop new fields, increasingly difficult geological conditions and additional infrastructure costs
associated with the exploitation of new fields". Early in the paper the authors ask, "Will coal be a fuel of the future?"
Their disturbing conclusion, many pages later, is that "coal might not be so abundant, widely available and reliable
as an energy source in the future". Along the way, they state "the world could run out of economically
recoverable (at current economic and operating conditions) reserves of coal much earlier than widely anticipated".
The authors also highlight problems noted in the EWG study having to do with differing grades of coal and the likelihood of supply
problems arising first with the highest-grade ores. All of this translates to higher coal prices in coming years. The conclusion is repeated
throughout the IFE report: "[I]t is true that historically coal has been cheaper than oil and gas on an energy content basis. This may
change, however ... The regional and country overview in the preceding chapter has revealed that coal recovery in most countries will
incur higher production costs in future. Since international coal prices are still linked to production costs ... an increase in the global
price levels of coal can be expected ..." As prices for coal rise, "the relative gap between coal prices and oil and gas prices will most
likely narrow", with the result that "the future world oil, gas and coal markets will most likely become increasingly inter-related and the
energy market will tend to develop into a global market of hydrocarbons".
WNDI 2008 9
Nuclear Power Aff
Advantage – coal – warming

Sub-point __ is warming
Increasing our reliance on coal for electricity generation will release enough emissions to
trigger runaway global warming – the impact is extinction
Dale Allen Pfeiffer, geologist and peak oil theorist, author of the widely-acclaimed books Giants in Their Steps
and The End Of The Oil Age. “Global Climate Change & Peak Oil,” Wilderness Publications 2004
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/072004_global_climate3.shtml
As oil and natural gas production go into decline in North America, the alternative we will ultimately
turn to is coal-whether we like it or not. Coal is considered to be abundant in North America, and it is cheap. Despite all the talk of a
hydrogen economy, the real investment will go into stepping up coal production. In fact, the production of coal-fired power plants has
already been stepped up. As of February 2004, at least 100 new coal-fired electric power plants were planned to go
up in more than 36 states.23 This new growth market is currently flying below radar, because once plans for a coal-burning
plant are made public, they are liable to be halted by the legislative efforts of environmentalists and neighborhood coalitions. If even
half of these plants are completed, they will increase exhaust gas emissions by 120 million cubic feet
per minute. All the new coal plants being proposed would add one-tenth of one percent to the world's
annual carbon dioxide emissions.24 That may not seem like much, but it is certainly a move in the wrong
direction. And it is only the beginning. As the production of oil and natural gas continues to slide, we will open up our coal
reserves for electricity production, heating, industrial use, and to process coal into liquid transportation fuel. In the process, we will
increase our exhaust emissions, rip up vast areas of land, create immense slag dumps, and pollute our waterways and groundwater. And
we will require a major upgrade in our coal transportation network-that is, trucks and trains. You can expect strong efforts from industry
and politicians to turn back environmental laws regulating coal production and coal burning. It will be argued that these regulations are
damaging the economy. They will point to an economy choking from a constricting energy base, and they will insist that they cannot
provide the energy we so desperately need with all these legal restrictions. Power outages will act to blunt the environmental sensibilities
of the public. Perhaps the only salvation here lies in recent research (reported in FTW), that coal is likely to peak sometime around
2032, if not sooner.25 This will leave us a little less than 20 years of stepped up production before coal joins the list of has-beens. Then
our carbon emissions really may begin to decrease. But the US is not the only country likely to turn to coal. China is also eying its large
reserves of coal, as is India. If the world's two most populous countries step up their coal consumption along with the US, then the
decline in petroleum and natural gas production will actually be greeted with a pronounced increase in carbon emissions. Peak oil will
not be a blessing in disguise with regard to global warming. The models of global climate change developed by the
IPCC and others have not taken into account the impacts of Peak Oil and the North American Natural Gas Cliff. These models
are based on faulty economic projections produced by neo-classical economics-a warped discipline which is
blind to resource depletion.26 If we turn to coal and biomass to make up for the decrease in oil and natural gas production, then it
is likely that our actions will push the average global temperature well beyond the 6º C threshold
mentioned above. The end of the oil age could very well push us into an age of runaway global warming.
Coal will not be able to support the kind of energy-intensive economy which we have built on oil and natural gas. It will be a faltering
effort from a civilization in denial, intent on clinging to unsustainable ways. It will fail in the end, but in this last mad
burn-off of energy resources, we may very well incur the demise of life on this planet.
WNDI 2008 10
Nuclear Power Aff
Advantage – coal – warming
And, Runaway warming kills billions and collapses the global economy
Lester Milbrath (director of the Research Program in Environment and Society at the State University of New
York at Buffalo and a professor emeritus of political science and sociology) May 1994 The Futurist, “Climate and
chaos: societal impacts of sudden weather shifts”, lexis
Extreme weather conditions may cause population shifts and decreased agricultural output. Humanity
might face the ultimate test of survival. Climate modelers have been cautiously predicting that the earth will gradually
warm in the years ahead, producing similarly gradual changes in climatic patterns. For instance, the middle of North America will
slowly grow arid. It continues…Another scenario suggests that there could be an extended period, perhaps a decade or two, when
there is oscillation-type chaos in the climate system. Plants will be especially vulnerable to oscillating
chaos, since they are injured or die when climate is too hot or too cold, too dry or too wet. And since plants make food for
all other creatures, plant dieback would lead to severe declines in agricultural production. Farm
animals and wildlife would die in large numbers. Many humans also would starve. Several years of climatic
oscillation could kill billions of people. The loss of the premise of continuity would also precipitate
collapse of would financial markets. That collapse would lead to sharp declines in commodity markets, world trade, factory
output, retail sales, research and development, tax income for governments, and education. Such nonessential activities as tourism,
travel, hotel occupancy, restaurants, entertainment, and fashion would be severely affected. Billions of unemployed people
would drastically reduce their consumption, and modern society's vaunted economic system would
collapse like a house of cards.
Independently, burning low quality coal provides less energy AND results in more
emissions – supercharges our impact
Dr G Lu, University of Kent. “Quantitative Characterisation of Flame Radical Emissions for Combustion
Optimisation through Spectroscopic Imaging,” Grant proposal 7/11/2008
http://gow.epsrc.ac.uk/ViewGrant.aspx?GrantRef=EP/G002398/1
The power generation industry relies heavily on coal despite the availability of other energy sources. The use
of low quality coals,
and coal blends from a variety of sources is becoming widespread in power plant for economic and
availability reasons. Co-firing coal with biomass on existing coal fired furnaces is recognised as one of the new technologies for
reducing CO2 emissions in the UK and the rest of the world. The changes in these fuel supplies have posed significant
technical challenges for combustion plant operators and engineers to maintain high combustion
efficiency and low atmospheric emissions including CO2, NOx, SOx and particulates. Despite various advances in
developing the coal combustion and co-firing technologies, a range of technological issues remain to be
resolved due to the inherent differences in the physical and combustion properties between coal and biomass.
A typical problem associated with the use of low quality coal and co-firing of coal and biomass is the
uncertainty in the combustion characteristics of the fuels, often resulting in poor flame stability, low
thermal efficiency, high pollutant emissions, and other operational problems. To meet the stringent standards on
energy saving and pollutant emissions, advanced technology for improved understanding of energy conversion, pollutant formation
processes and consequent combustion optimisation in coal-biomass fired furnaces have therefore become indispensable. A flame, as the
primary zone of the highly exothermic reactions of burning fuels, contains important information relating closely to the quality of the
combustion process. Recent study has shown that the combustion process, particularly the pollutant emission formation processes, can
be better understood and consequently optimised by monitoring and quantifying radical emissions within the flame zone through
spectroscopic imaging and image processing techniques. It is proposed to develop a methodolgy for the monitoring and quantification of
the radiative characteristics of free radicals (e.g. OH*, CH*, CN* and C2) within a coal-biomass flame and consquently the estimation
of the emission levels in flue gas (e.g. NOx, CO2 and unburnt carbon). A vision-based instrumentation system, capable of detecting the
radiative characteristics of the multiple radicals simultaneously and two-dimensionally, will be constructed. Computing algorithms will
be developed to analyse the images and quantify the radiative characteristics of the radicals based on advanced signal processing
techniques including wavelet analysis. The relationships between the characteristics of the radicals and fuel type and air supplies will be
established. The emission levels in flue gas will be estimated based on characteristic features of the flame radicals obtained by the
system. All data processing will be performed in an industrial computer system associating with integrated system software including a
graphic user-interface. The system developed will be initially tested on a gas-fired combustion rig in University of Kent and then an
industrial-scale coal combustion test facility run by RWE npower. A range of combustion conditions will be created during the industrial
tests, including different coal-biomass blends and different fuel/air flowrates. The relationships between the emission characteristics of
radicals and the chemical/physical properties of the fuels and the pollutant emissions will then examined under realistic industrial
conditions. The outcome of this research will provide a foundation for a new area within coal-biomass combustion optimisation in which
advanced flame monitoring techniques could help to predict emissions directly from the flame information instead of the flue gas
measurement, shortening the control loop for emissions reduction. Such techniques would greatly benefit the power industry by allowing
them burning fuels more efficiently and meanwhile reducing harmful emissions to the environment.
WNDI 2008 11
Nuclear Power Aff
Advantage – coal – economy
Sub-point __ is the economy:

Peak coal means our window is closing – failure to begin transitioning away from coal
NOW guarantees global economic collapse
Richard Heinberg, Core Faculty member of New College of California and a Fellow of the Post Carbon Institute,
widely regarded as one of the world's foremost Peak Oil educators. “Peak coal: sooner than you think,” Energy
Bulletin, May 21 2007 http://www.energybulletin.net/node/29919
Evidence that coal resource limits may constrain CO2 emissions would seem to be good news for climate
protection advocates. However, the latter may be wary that industry-led opponents of emissions-reduction policies will seize on this
new data to argue that governments needn't do anything about emissions, since rates of coal extraction will decline in any case.
Nevertheless it makes more sense for climate activists to embrace the news and use it to advantage, rather
than to deny or marginalise it. They can argue that, even if society finds steep voluntary cuts in the use of
coal to be economically onerous, there is really no alternative: declines in production will happen
anyway, so it is better to cut consumption proactively than wait and be faced with shortages and price
volatility later. The findings of the 2005 USDoE-funded Hirsch report (PDF 1.17MB) (Peak of World Oil Production: Impacts,
Mitigation and Risk Management) regarding society's vulnerability to peak oil apply also to peak coal: time will be
needed in order for society to adapt proactively to a resource-constrained environment. A failure to
begin now to reduce reliance on coal will mean much greater economic hardship when the peak arrives.
The new information about coal tells us that even if the economic price for carbon reduction is high, we have no
choice but to proceed. There is no "business-as-usual" option, even ignoring environmental impacts,
given the resource constraints. Nations that are currently dependent on coal - China and the US
especially - would be wise to begin reducing consumption now, not only in the interests of climate
protection, but also to reduce societal vulnerability arising from dependence on a resource that will
soon become more scarce and expensive. The reports' findings are not uniformly encouraging for climate matters, though.
The IFE authors suggest that price increases for coal may discourage deployment of technologies to capture
and bury carbon to reduce greenhouse gas emissions: in poorer countries, "producing cheap and
affordable electricity is more important than producing environmentally friendly electricity". A wake-up
call on coal Taken together, the EWG and IFE reports deliver a shocking message. For a world already concerned about future oil
supplies, uncertainties about coal undercut one of the primary strategies - turning supposedly abundant coal into a liquid fuel - that is
being touted for maintaining global transport networks. The sustainability of China's economic growth, which has
largely been based on a rapid surge in coal consumption, is thrown into question. And the ability of the
US to maintain its coal-powered electricity grids in coming decades is also cast into doubt. In summary, we
now have two authoritative studies reaching largely consistent conclusions with devastating
implications for the global economy. Surely these studies deserve follow-up reviews of the data by the International
Energy Agency. If the EWG and IFE conclusions hold, the world will need to respond quickly with an enormous
shift in the directions of energy conservation and development of renewable sources of electricity. Climate concerns
are already drawing some nations in these directions; however, even nations leading the efforts may not be proceeding fast enough. For
China and the United States, the world's two most coal-dependent countries, the message could not be clearer: whether or not global
climate concerns are taken seriously, it is time to fundamentally revise the current energy paradigm.
Economic decline causes global nuclear war

Mead 92 [Walter Russel, fellow, Council on Foreign Relations, New perspectives quarterly, summer pp. 28]
What if the global economy stagnates - or even shrinks? In that case, we will face a new
But what if it can't?
period of international conflict: South against North, rich against poor. Russia, China, India - these
countries with their billions of people and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger to
world order than Germany and Japan did in the '30s.
WNDI 2008 12
Nuclear Power Aff
Advantage – nuclear power – cred/heg

Advantage two: nuclear power
Sub-point __ is US credibility:
Expanding US nuclear energy is critical to restoring US credibility
James E. Hickey, Jr., Professor of Law, Director of International and Comparative Law Programs, Hofstra Law
School, IDEA: REVIVING THE NUCLEAR POWER OPTION IN THE UNITED STATES: USING DOMESTIC
ENERGY LAW TO CURE TWO PERCEPTIONS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW ILLEGALITY, Hofstra Law
Review, 35 Hofstra L. Rev. 425, Winter 2006, Lexis [JH]
It may now be time to rebuild that consensus and revive the growth of the nuclear power industry in
the United States. Our dependence on foreign oil has grown to an unacceptable degree and evidence of
the dangers of irreversible global catastrophe from global warming is mounting, while the energy
policy of the United States remains a prisoner of fossil fuels. This has resulted in widely held perceptions,
right or wrong, that the United States violated international law on the use of force by invading Iraq to secure foreign
oil sources and that it now is violating the letter and spirit of the emerging international law regime to deal with climate change.
Those perceptions can be removed by a domestic growth energy policy resting on existing domestic energy laws
that moves away from fossil fuels and expands nuclear power production. If fossil fuels continue to be
the centerpiece of long term domestic energy policy, those perceptions of international law illegality will persist
to the detriment of U.S. foreign policy for decades.
U.S. credibility is key to heg

Heiko Borchert (business and political consultant) and Mary Hampton (associate professor of political
science at the University of Utah) Spring 2002 “The Lessons of Kosovo: Boon or Bust for Transatlantic Security?”
Orbis, v46 issue 2
Many of the proponents of U.S. unilateralism equate multilateralism with multipolarity. Such critics assume, for
example, that acting multilaterally, in concert with its European allies, diminishes American power. Charles Krauthammer,
representative of unilateralist advocates, has heralded what he calls the "new unilateralism," observing with approval that: [W]e now have an administration willing
to assert American freedom of action and the primacy of American national interests. Rather than contain American power within a vast web of constraining
international agreements, the new unilateralism seeks to strengthen American power and unashamedly deploy it on behalf of self-defined global ends. In an article
promoting a more unilateralist United States, Krauthammer observes: It is hard to understand the enthusiasm of so many for a diminished America and a world
reverted to multipolarity. Our principle aim is to maintain the stability and relative tranquility of the current international system by enforcing, maintaining, and
extending the current peace. It is not at all clear why these U.S. objectives are better provided for through
unilateralism. The argument that the United States is more empowered when unshackled from the constraints of
its self-inflicted multilateral binds is one made frequently since Allied Force. It is an argument that confuses leadership and power. In
truth, the multilateral order the United States was instrumental in creating at the end of World War II enhanced its power. Multilateralism
lessened the need for employing expensive instruments of coercion by legitimizing U.S. leadership, both at home and abroad, through
interlocking webs of agreements, institutions and regimes. As John Ikenberry has put it: "The lesson of order building in this century is that
international institutions have played a pervasive and ultimately constructive role in the exercise of American power." Leadership has to do
with power but it does not equal power. The crucial variable is purpose. Unlike naked power-wielding, "leadership is
inseparable from followers' needs and goals." Since leadership results from an interactive process where one actor is presumed
to be the leader and other actors are willing to follow, the leader must be able to convince the followers. Leadership is
therefore based on persuasion and normative consensus. Once the leader's commitment wanes, replaced by
neglect or resort to attempted coercion, followers will find the first occasion to defect.
Leadership is essential to prevent global nuclear exchange

Zalmay Khalilzad, RAND, The Washington Quarterly, Spring 1995
Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to
multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not
as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous
advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets,
and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's
major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-
level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival,
enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant
dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than
a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.
WNDI 2008 13
Nuclear Power Aff
Advantage – nuclear power – isotopes

Sub-point __ is medical isotopes:
A single reactor supplies nuclear isotopes for medical treatments in ALL hospitals in North
America – its recent shutdown has sent hospitals reeling
NYT New York Times, “Reactor Shutdown Causing Medical Isotope Shortage”, December 6, 2007, Lexis
Medical treatments are being delayed or deferred at hospitals worldwide because of the extended
shutdown of a Canadian reactor. The reactor, the Atomic Energy of Canada reactor at Chalk River, Ontario, near Ottawa,
is North America's only source of the base isotope for technetium-99, a workhorse of modern medical
diagnostic systems. It is injected into patients 20 million times a year in the United States to create images
used in the diagnosis and treatment of a wide variety of illnesses including heart ailments, cancers and
gallbladder problems. The reactor closed on Nov. 18 for maintenance. It was scheduled to open five days later but remained
closed ''to complete the installation of safety-related equipment,'' the company said. On Wednesday, Atomic Energy's wholesaler, MDS
Nordion, said it did not expect full production to resume until mid-January. Because the isotopes created by the reactor decay rapidly,
they cannot be stockpiled, which is leading to growing shortages of the material at medical centers. Adding to the problem is the fact that
the Atomic Energy reactor produces 50 to 80 percent of the world's supply of molybdenum-99, the isotope that breaks down into
technetium-99. The shortfall has renewed decades-old calls for the United States to develop its own
medical isotope reactors rather than continuing to rely on imported products from a limited number of
producers. ''This is a bad news story in every sense of the word,'' said Dr. Alexander J. B. McEwan, the president of the Society of
Nuclear Medicine, which is based in Reston, Va. ''It means patients are going to suffer. People are going to look at this and say, 'Why are
we so reliant on a single supplier?''' Dr. Henry D. Royal, a professor of radiology at Washington University in St. Louis, added: ‘'The
fundamental problem is that the supply of radiopharmaceuticals is very fragile because we rely on
foreign imports, which we have no control over.'’ Several years ago, government-owned Atomic Energy sold its
wholesale distribution and sales business to MDS Nordion, an Ottawa-based company that is owned by MDS, the large Canadian
medical services company. (In a statement, MDS Nordion said that the reactor problem would reduce its quarterly earnings by $8
million to $9 million.) Technetium-99 has a shelf life of six hours, making it impractical to ship over any
distance. In the United States, hospitals usually buy specialized containers of molybdenum-99 known
as generators. Those devices, which are mostly sold by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Mallinckrodt, a unit of Covidien, use a
chemical process to separate the technetium-99 just before it is needed for patient tests. Like disposable
flashlight batteries, however, the generators eventually run down. The Atomic Energy reactor shutdown has left some
hospitals unable to find replacements. Hospitals affiliated with Yale University have been able to fill the gap by buying
technetium-99 from an outside laboratory, Dr. J. James Frost, a professor of diagnostic radiology, said. The shortage, however, is
already creating after-hours problems for emergency rooms at both Yale and Johns Hopkins University,
where Dr. Frost also holds an academic posting. With the private labs closed at night and the in-house isotope generators not working,
some patients now have to wait until morning for treatment, Dr. Frost said. While the effect of that is mostly
inconvenience for both the patients and hospitals, Dr. Frost said that lack of after-hour diagnostic isotopes
was potentially dangerous for a small number of patients with certain conditions. In Canada, several hospitals have canceled
nonurgent tests that require the isotope.
WNDI 2008 14
Nuclear Power Aff

Fortunately, expanding our domestic nuclear power industry would provide sufficient
stores of nuclear isotopes, which are key to solving AIDs and other diseases
Africa News (Africa News, Namibia; Nuclear Energy for Medicine, June 15, 2007, Lexis)
Like Janus, a powerful god in Greek mythology, nucleartechnology has two different faces. It can be used to develop
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). On the other hand, the same technology could be employed to
create Weapons of Mass Happiness (WMH). Let us harness nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and
bring wealth and happiness to the global community. Nuclear technology is a miracle tool that can be
used in power generation, desalination, and agricultural and manufacturing industries. This article is an
introduction to Nuclear Medicine. Nuclear Medicine Nuclear medicine is a special branch of medical
science. It uses nuclear tools like radioisotopes (radioactive isotopes) to diagnose and treat diseases. In 1935, Enrico
Fermi began to use radioactive elements (radioisotopes) to identify and treat a number of diseases. His initial efforts immensely contributed to
the development of nuclear medicine. As a part of the Manhattan Nuclear Project of World War 11, the United States of America constructed a
few nuclear reactors at Ork Ridge. These reactors produced the above-mentioned medical radioisotopes at a cheaper price for the use of nuclear
medical applications. In 1946, the US Congress passed the Atomic Energy Act that permitted the production of medical isotopes at the Ork Ridge
nuclear reactor complex. Those initiatives hastened the progress of nuclear medicine. Radioisotopes Radioisotopes are produced by
nuclear reactors. They are used in agriculture and industry, research, medicine and other fields. The
Department of Energy (DOE)'s Office of Nuclear Energy of the USA is one of the well-established isotope
producers in the world which cater for international customers. Creating a radioisotope means changing the nucleus (centre) of an atom.
This change can be done by striking the nucleus with a sub-atomic particle (e.g. neutron, proton or an alpha particle). The aforesaid strike makes a
reaction in the atom and begins to release radiation. In the healthcare field, radioisotopes are used in medical diagnostics, imaging and cancer
therapy, heart diseases and other medical problems. As with other areas of healthcare, nuclear medicine is playing a
critical role in HIV/AIDS management. In addition, in the follow-up of HIV/AIDS patients, nuclear
medical applications help to diagnose HIV infection very precisely. Nuclear medical scanning (e.g. Aerosol
and Gallium-67 scanning) is used to diagnose patients exposed to Pneumocystis Carnini Pneumonia (PCP). It is simple, rapid
and accurate. For example, "a 42-year-old homosexual male represented with a 3-week history of fever and sweat. He was diagnosed as
HIV-positive 5 years earlier, but had not manifested with opportunistic infections (OI).. Nuclear medical scientists use scanning units supported
by radioisotopes to detect AIDS-related tumors like Kaposi's sarcoma. Imaging Technology Nuclear-based imaging is an
advanced medical tool that is used in diagnosis. In this testing system, radioactive substances are inserted into the patient's
body. The aforesaid radioactive substances are also known as radionuclide or tracers. In the presence of disease, a tracer will normally distribute
around the body or process unusually. Any abnormal psychological development, such as a fraction of a bone, will show a concentration of tracers
around that affected location. Broadly speaking, the diagnostic tests can be divided into two groups: in-vivo tests, where measurements are
directly linked to the patient; or in-vitro tests, where measurements are taken of samples collected from the patient's blood, urine or breath.
Gamma Camera Nuclear medicine diagnostic tests could be done through a gamma camera that takes
images of a patient's body parts or where radiation emits from radioactive particles already admitted
to the patient. This imaging procedure is also known as nuclear scintigraphy or radionuclide imaging. The images of above-cited tests (in-
vivo and in-vitro) could be captured by a gamma camera. These cameras can take three-dimensional images of a particular organ or areas of
interest. For example, this imaging technique can be performed to locate a brain tumor. In addition, the chemical form of Mecury-197
radioisotope is useful to trace the tumor in the brain. Moreover, it detects bone cancers that cannot be photographed by an X-ray machine. Nuclear
Treatment Africa's Nobel Peace Prize winning archbishop Desmond Tutu was diagnosed with prostate
cancer in 1996. He received radiation treatment in New York. Modern nuclear medicine plays a crucial
role in treatment. Nowadays, radioisotopes have become a reliable tool that could be utilized to treat
cancers, heart disease and AIDS-related tumors such as Kaposi's sarcoma and other medical conditions.
Some studies have disclosed that one in every three persons reaching public or private hospitals are
benefiting by using radioisotopes-based diagnostic tests and treatments. Radiotherapy, using high-energy radiation,
without harming healthy tissues, eliminates the cancer cells or stops the spread of them. Moreover, after locating the radiation source of an
unhealthy organ, such as Iodine-131 in the thyroid gland, radiotherapy can treat that abnormal growth successfully. Besides that, nuclear powered
mechanical hearts and cardiac pacemakers are used to extend the lives of heart patients. New Frontier Presently, nuclear medicine is rapidly
progressing as a special discipline. It is backed and supported by nuclear science, radiology, genomics and biometrics, and other sciences. For
instance, the three-year postgraduate Nuclear Medicine Residency Program of the New York Medical College has been recognized by the
American Board of Nuclear Medicine. This course covers imaging systems, radioimmunotherapy, radiopharmacy, radiobiology and nuclear-
cardiology. The Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology (JNMT) and Journal of Nuclear Medicine (JNM) are the widely read publications that
contribute to the advancement of this emerging science. It is relevant to note here, that interested readers can be referred to a recent publication in
this field, "Developments in Nuclear Medicine" by Richard A Baum and others. Now this publication can be ordered online by visiting
www.amazon.com Economic Take-Off Thomas Friedman, one of the world's most influential American journalists, in his 'The World is Flat' has
highlighted: "For the first time in more than a century, the United States could well find itself falling behind other countries in the capacity of
scientific discoveries, innovations and development." Nevertheless, the developing world could not benefit from those inventions or advanced
technologies that initiated industrialization and prosperity in the developed world. As is happening in the fields of information technology and
nuclear science, the developing nations have missed the bus. Anyhow, we don't want to remain as consumer nations, raw-material suppliers and
foreign-aid recipients forever. Therefore, let us grab the constantly growing advanced scientific and technological
knowledge as soon as possible. In the context of the same argument, no one can ignore the numerous
benefits of nuclear technology.
WNDI 2008 15
Nuclear Power Aff

Unchecked AIDS results in extinction
Robert Ornstein, University of California Medical Center, Paul Ehrlich, Center for Conservation Biology, New
World New Mind, 1989, p.129
AIDS clearly has the potential for decimating the human population. In addition to its extreme virulence,
the AIDS virus can be carried for many years without producing symptoms. For part or all of that
period the carrier is infectious, and that makes the situation much worse. People carrying the virus can
infect person after person, and no one need be the wiser. A prostitute infected with AIDS could stay in
business for five years or more, killing thousands of people (her clients and their other contacts) without
being aware she was doing it. Under present public health policies in many nations there is no way of
ending the sequence. More frightening is the extreme mutability (the ability to change form) of the virus.
Many different strains exist already, which, along with other properties of AIDS, may make the
development of cheap, permanent immunization procedures quite difficult. Furthermore few drugs so far
exist to combat viruses, and there is little reason to believe that a biochemical cure for AIDS will be found
readily, even though substantial progress has been made in understanding how to design antiviral drugs.
Among other things, the virus may be able to evolve resistance to drugs that are initially effective. Last,
as more and more people are infected, strains of the virus may evolve that are more readily
transmittible than those already circulating in the population. That is a very real possibility that terrifies
biologists who understand the evolutionary potential of viruses. It is even therefore conceivable that
humanity will sooner or later have to deal with strains of AIDS that can be transmitted by the bites of
arthropods (perhaps by the bites of mosquitos that were interrupted while feeding on someone carrying the
virus). Worse yet, a variety of AIDS virus might evolve that can be transmitted by relatively casual,
nonsexual physical contact or even by inhaling droplets sneezed into the air. The odds of it happening seem
very small, but the consequences if it did occur would be, to say the least, daunting. With millions virtually
certain to die in Africa, the possibility that the virus, if uncontrolled, could result in extremely high
death rates in the developed countries should not be overlooked.
WNDI 2008 16
Nuclear Power Aff
Advantage – nuclear power – comp/heg

Sub-point __ is competitiveness:
The American economy is fast losing its ability to compete globally – developing a robust
nuclear power industry is crucial to long-term economic success
Peter W. Huber, Energy Consultant and Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, “Why the US Needs More Nuclear
Power”, City-Journal, Winter 2005. < http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_1_nuclear_power.html >[HBP]
Most of the world, Europe aside, now recognizes this point. Workers
in Asia and India are swiftly gaining access to
the powered machines that steadily boosted the productivity of the American factory worker
throughout the twentieth century. And the electricity driving those machines comes from power plants
designed—and often built—by U.S. vendors. The power is a lot less expensive than ours, though, since
it is generated the old-fashioned forget-the-environment way. There is little bother about protecting the river or
scrubbing the smoke. China’s answer to the 2-gigawatt Hoover Dam on the Colorado River is the Three Gorges project, an 18-gigawatt
dam on the Yangtze River. Combine cheaper supplies of energy with ready access to heavy industrial
machines, and it’s hard to see how foreign laborers cannot close the productivity gap that has
historically enabled American workers to remain competitive at considerably higher wages. Unless,
that is, the United States keeps on pushing the productivity of its own workforce out ahead of its
competitors. That—inevitably—means expanding our power supply and keeping it affordable, and
deploying even more advanced technologies of powered production. Nuclear power would help keep
the twenty-first-century U.S. economy globally competitive.
Competitiveness key to maintain a military that discourages any challengers

Barry Posen (Political Science Professor at MIT) Summer 2003 “Command of the Commons", International
Security, Vol. 28, Issue 1, Pg. 5
What are the sources of U.S. command of the commons? One obvious source is the general U.S.
superiority in economic resources. According to the Central Intelligence Agency, the United States produces 23 percent
of gross world product (GWP); it has more than twice as many resources under the control of a single political
authority as either of the next two most potent economic powers -- Japan with 7 percent of GWP and China with 10
percent. n14 With 3.5 percent of U.S. gross domestic product devoted to defense (nearly 1 percent of GWP), the
U.S. military can undertake larger projects than any other military in the world. The specific weapons
and platforms needed to secure and exploit command of the commons are expensive. They depend on a
huge scientific and industrial base for their design and production. In 2001 the U.S. Department of Defense
budgeted nearly as much money for military research and development as Germany and France together budgeted for their entire
military efforts. n15 The military exploitation of information technology, a field where the U.S. military excels, is
a
key element. The systems needed to command the commons require significant skills in systems
integration and the management of large-scale industrial projects, where the U.S. defense industry excels. The
development of new weapons and tactics depends on decades of expensively accumulated technological and tactical experience
embodied in the institutional memory of public and private military research and development organizations. n16 Finally, the
military personnel needed to run these systems are among the most highly skilled and highly trained in
the world. The barriers to entry to a state seeking the military capabilities to fight for the commons are
very high.
Leadership is essential to prevent global nuclear exchange

Zalmay Khalilzad, RAND, The Washington Quarterly, Spring 1995
Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to
multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not
as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous
advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values --
democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing
cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional
hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the
rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold
or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would
therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.
WNDI 2008 17
Nuclear Power Aff
Plan
Plan: The United States federal government should provide loan guarantees without caps
for the development and construction of nuclear power plants in the United States. The
United States federal government should extend the eligibility deadline for these loan
guarantees.
WNDI 2008 18
Nuclear Power Aff
OB2: Solvency
Providing loan guarantees is the only way to ensure that enough new nuclear plants will be
built to meet rising energy demands
Theodore G. Adams (health physicist at T. G.Adams and Associates in Springville) June 8 2008 “Federal loan
guarantees key to nuclear plant construction”, The Buffalo News Opinion,
http://www.buffalonews.com/367/story/365369.html
Electricity companies plan to build more than 30 new nuclear power plants in the United States, but
few, if any, are likely to get beyond the drawing- board stage until the government provides loan
guarantees. Because high up-front costs have made nuclear plant construction potentially risky, Wall
Street investors say federal loan guarantees are needed in the event that unanticipated delays from
intervention or litigation drive up the cost of construction, as happened during the 1980s. To facilitate the
construction of new plants, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved several plant sites,
certified designs for new reactors and modified its plant licensing process. If nuclear plant construction proceeds
pretty much on schedule, loan guarantees will cost taxpayers nothing. Congress two years ago approved loan guarantees
for the first few new nuclear plants. But it conditioned the loan guarantees on being awarded no later
than 2009 and then only to companies possessing a joint license to construct and operate a new nuclear plant. Since no company
has yet to obtain such a license from the commission and the 2009 window is fast closing, the deadline
for eligibility should be extended. The Bush administration and Congress need to take prompt action. Since
nuclear power accounts for more than 70 percent of carbon-free electricity generation in the United States, not to increase its use would
be folly. Nuclear power is safe and reliable. And it’s produced here in this country, free of foreign interference. Some
environmental groups claim that renewable energy sources can meet our needs and that nuclear power is no
longer necessary. But renewable sources like solar and wind, while part of the answer to global warming, cannot
provide the large amounts of base-load electricity needed to drive our economy. Solar panels and wind turbines
generate power only intermittently, requiring back-up energy from fossil fuels. Although strongly supported and promoted by the
federal government and many states, solar and wind combined provide only 3 percent of the nation’s electricity, compared to 52 percent
from coal and 20 percent from nuclear power. With electricity demand on the upswing, record amounts of coal
and natural gas being burned and scientists warning about the potentially devastating impact of global
warming, we are headed for a perfect storm. It is encouraging that the presidential candidates recognize the need to
control greenhouse-gas emissions. Sen. John McCain is principal author of legislation, introduced last year, that seeks to cut emissions to
60 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. A longtime supporter of nuclear power, McCain said on the Senate floor that the measure
proposes “adding new reactor designs for nuclear power.” He said, “The idea that nuclear power should play no role in our future energy
mix is an unsustainable position. At a minimum we must make efforts to maintain nuclear energy’s level of contribution, so that this
capacity is not replaced with higher-emitting alternatives.” The legislation calls for federal funding to develop clean-energy
technologies, including new nuclear power plants. Among the bill’s co-sponsors are Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. By all
measures, there has been a significant improvement in nuclear safety since the 1970s. Industrial and nuclear
safety records are consistently better than ever in more than four decades of operation. Unplanned automatic plant
shutdowns, workplace accident rate, collective radiation exposure and other indices of plant safety
continue to meet tough goals set by the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations. And spent fuel is being stored
safely and securely at nuclear plant sites, while work proceeds on developing a permanent repository for nuclear waste in Nevada. The
upshot is that the cost of producing nuclear- generated electricity is less than electricity coming from fossil-fuel plants. Last year,
according to the Nuclear Energy Institute, the 104 U. S. nuclear plants produced electricity, on average, at a cost of 1.7 cents per
kilowatt-hour (kwh). By comparison, electricity cost 2.3 cents per kwh from coal-fueled plants, 6.7 cents per kwh from natural gas
plants, and 9.6 cents per kwh from oil plants. It is expected that new nuclear plants will have even lower production costs given
improved designs that should cost less to operate and maintain. What will it take to build the next nuclear plant? In
short, some insurance in the form of loan guarantees to cover the potential cost and schedule impacts of new plant
construction. Now is the time to move forward with nuclear power. It’s the key to our energy security and
environmental well-being.
WNDI 2008 19
Nuclear Power Aff
OB2: Solvency
Current federal programs cap available funds at $18.5 billion – removing the cap is key to
motivating investors
Inside Energy with Federal Lands June 9 2008 “Limits on loan guarantee program seen blunting its
impact on nuclear revival”, lexis
Representatives of the Energy Department, Wall Street and industry told senators last week that DOE's $18.5
billion in loan guarantees for new nuclear plants is not enough to substantially promote a revival of
nuclear power in the US. In a roundtable discussion, four senators were reminded that nuclear plants are capital-
intensive and require utilities to spend tens of millions of dollars to prepare to build the units. "These new
nuclear plants are very high-cost ? capital-intensive plants that can't be financed on individual companies' balance sheets," said Nuclear
Energy Institute President Frank "Skip" Bowman. "I don't think Congress has done everything in all respects to help promote this
obvious need for new nuclear plants." Bowman said the cost of electricity is increasing and the nuclear plants
would help lower those expenses. Wall Street analysts told the lawmakers that investors are
uncomfortable financing such long-term projects that are subject to the whims of politics and regulatory change.
Among the issues for investors is DOE's loan-guarantee program. The program, a provision of the Energy Policy
Act of 2005 calls for the department to cover up to 100% of a loan for a clean energy project, up to 80% of the cost of the entire project
if the loan comes from the Federal Financing Bank at the Treasury Department. DOE would cover up to 90% of the total cost of a loan
that comes from another lending institution. Under the program, DOE would act as a sort of cosigner to the financing. In April, DOE
announced that it plans to conduct solicitations this summer for advanced energy projects that may qualify for up to $38.5 billion in
federal loan guarantees (IE, 14 April, 14). $18.5 billion of that amount is earmarked for nuclear plants, with another $2 billion for
uranium-enrichment facilities. In an interview after the roundtable, DOE Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy
Dennis Spurgeon agreed that the $18.5 billion would barely cover the construction of three nuclear
plants. Spurgeon said, "for us to be able to put the amount of nuclear energy into use that we believe is
required in order for us to meet both energy needs and reduce our carbon emissions, requires many more
nuclear plants than can be supported by the current cap on loan guarantees." The Congress must
appropriate more money or eliminate the cap on the guarantees, the assistant secretary said. "The subsidy cost is paid by
the applicants. Just like with the Export-Import Bank, this is not something that, run properly, would cost the taxpayer a dime," Spurgeon
said. No DOE solicitation yet DOE has not yet issued a solicitation for new nuclear projects that would be
financed through the loan guarantee program, and the department cannot award the assistance to utilities until they file
for a construction and operating license (COL) at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Bowman said the loan guarantee
program is "hamstrung" by the loan volume. He said of the nine applications for 15 plants currently pending
before NRC, only four to eight would be online by 2016. "Part of the reason is financing. But that $18.5 billion that's available
for nuclear, wouldn't even support that modest approach, that first wave of four to eight plants," Bowman said. Paul Farr, PPL
Corporation's chief financial officer, said "financing is the most significant aspect and most daunting prospect" in
deciding to build a nuclear plant, and even filing a COL. Farr said PPL is spending about $80 million to $100 million to
prepare its COL application, which it expects to file with NRC in September. It is planning on a loan guarantee. He noted, "$18.5
billion is nowhere near sufficient." Building a 1,600-MW unit could cost $10 billion, for a company that may have $20 billion
in assets, Farr said. "This is very clearly as much as anything else a financing exercise. The technology can
be operated. It's the legal, regulatory and political risk of permitting. It's the new process of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It's
the first stage of this DOE loan guarantee process," Farr said. During the discussion, Republican Senator George Voinovich of Ohio, one
of the three senators that called the meeting, said he also supports getting rid of the limit on loan guarantees. "We ought not to have any
cap," he said. Democratic Senator Thomas Carper of Delaware, Republican Senator Johnny Isakson of Georgia and Republican Senator
James Inhofe of Oklahoma were also on the panel. Voinovich solicited comments from Wall Street analysts about
what it would take for the Street to invest in nuclear plants and whether eliminating a cap on loan
guarantees would entice investors. "If the market knew that the cap was off, and we were going full speed, would that make a difference?" he asked
analysts. Analysts said financing is a hurdle because a nuclear project is initially capital-intensive and is also subject to some volatility because of potential political or regulatory
changes over the course of the five- to 10-year project. Also last week, two industry experts, Amory Lovins and Imran Sheikh, released a paper, "The Nuclear Illusion," in which they
say a nuclear renaissance will not happen because of the high capital costs and the unwillingness of Wall Street to invest. The report said there were 439 nuclear plants operating as of
the end of 2007. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, 31 units were under construction in 13 countries. All but five of those projects were in Asia or Eastern Europe.
Yet, the Asian Development Bank has never financed one, nor has the World Bank, for the most part, the report said; it invested in one in 1959. Economic evidence confirms, the
report said, that "new nuclear plants are unfinanceable in the private capital market because of their excessive costs and financial risks and the high uncertainty of both." "Turning
ambitions into actual investments, firm orders, and operating plants faces fundamental obstacles that are now first and foremost economic," the report said. 'Get it done faster' Inhofe
said the country must somehow find a way to get more plants built. "We can't resolve the [energy-demand] problem without a huge nuclear component," Inhofe said. There are 33
applications for new plants at the NRC. "Our job is to streamline this thing to get it done faster," he said. Carper said, "One of the best ways to screw this [nuclear] renaissance up is
missteps." "One Three-Mile Island [disaster] and we're dead, hopefully not literally," he added. Carper said he would support including in climate change legislation next year a
"clean energy" fund to provide incentives to utilities for nuclear plants. "We cannot accomplish reducing carbon in what our goals are without nuclear," Inhofe said. "We cannot get
"We have got to have loan guarantees that are robust to encourage the financing.
there with the current nuclear title."
We need to have incentives that have some degree of parody. We subsidize wind and solar 20 times what we do nuclear," Inhofe
said.
WNDI 2008 20
Nuclear Power Aff
OB2: Solvency
Finally, the current loan guarantee program is set to expire in 2009 – only extending the
application deadline can guarantee a nuclear power industry strong enough to solve our
advantages
Thomas G. Adams, health physicist at TG Adams and Associates, “Federal Loan Guarantees Key to Nuclear Plant
Construction,” The Buffalo Times, June 8, 2008. http://www.buffalonews.com/248/story/365369.html
it is time to stimulate the use of nuclear energy. Only then
With America’s greenhouse-gas emissions increasing daily,
will we be able to deal with the challenges of atmospheric pollution and climate change, while meeting
our nation’s growing need for electricity. Electricity companies plan to build more than 30 new nuclear power plants in the
United States, but few, if any, are likely to get beyond the drawing- board stage until the government provides loan guarantees. Because
high up-front costs have made nuclear plant construction potentially risky, Wall Street investors say federal loan
guarantees are needed in the event that unanticipated delays from intervention or litigation drive up the cost of construction, as
happened during the 1980s. To facilitate the construction of new plants, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved
several plant sites, certified designs for new reactors and modified its plant licensing process. If nuclear plant construction
proceeds pretty much on schedule, loan guarantees will cost taxpayers nothing. Congress two years ago
approved loan guarantees for the first few new nuclear plants. But it conditioned the loan guarantees
on being awarded no later than 2009 and then only to companies possessing a joint license to construct
and operate a new nuclear plant. Since no company has yet to obtain such a license from the
commission and the 2009 window is fast closing, the deadline for eligibility should be extended. The
Bush administration and Congress need to take prompt action. Since nuclear power accounts for
more than 70 percent of carbon-free electricity generation in the United States, not to increase its use
would be folly. Nuclear power is safe and reliable. And it’s produced here in this country, free of
foreign interference. Some environmental groups claim that renewable energy sources can meet our needs and that nuclear power
is no longer necessary. But renewable sources like solar and wind, while part of the answer to global warming, cannot provide the large
amounts of base-load electricity needed to drive our economy. Solar panels and wind turbines generate power only intermittently,
requiring back-up energy from fossil fuels. Although strongly supported and promoted by the federal government and many states, solar
and wind combined provide only 3 percent of the nation’s electricity, compared to 52 percent from coal and 20 percent from nuclear
power. With electricity demand on the upswing, record amounts of coal and natural gas being burned and scientists warning about the
potentially devastating impact of global warming, we are headed for a perfect storm. It is encouraging that the presidential candidates
recognize the need to control greenhouse-gas emissions. Sen. John McCain is principal author of legislation, introduced last year, that
seeks to cut emissions to 60 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. A longtime supporter of nuclear power, McCain said on the Senate floor
that the measure proposes “adding new reactor designs for nuclear power.” He said, “The idea that nuclear power should play no role in
our future energy mix is an unsustainable position. At a minimum we must make efforts to maintain nuclear energy’s level of
contribution, so that this capacity is not replaced with higher-emitting alternatives.” The legislation calls for federal funding to develop
clean-energy technologies, including new nuclear power plants. Among the bill’s co-sponsors are Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack
Obama. By all measures, there has been a significant improvement in nuclear safety since the 1970s. Industrial and nuclear safety
records are consistently better than ever in more than four decades of operation. Unplanned automatic plant shutdowns, workplace
accident rate, collective radiation exposure and other indices of plant safety continue to meet tough goals set by the Institute of Nuclear
Power Operations. And spent fuel is being stored safely and securely at nuclear plant sites, while work proceeds on developing a
permanent repository for nuclear waste in Nevada. The upshot is that the cost of producing nuclear- generated electricity is less than
electricity coming from fossil-fuel plants. Last year, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute, the 104 U. S. nuclear plants produced
electricity, on average, at a cost of 1.7 cents per kilowatt-hour (kwh). By comparison, electricity cost 2.3 cents per kwh from coal-fueled
plants, 6.7 cents per kwh from natural gas plants, and 9.6 cents per kwh from oil plants. It is expected that new nuclear plants will have
even lower production costs given improved designs that should cost less to operate and maintain. What will it take to build the
next nuclear plant? In short, some insurance in the form of loan guarantees to cover the potential cost
and schedule impacts of new plant construction. Now is the time to move forward with nuclear power.
It’s the key to our energy security and environmental well-being.
WNDI 2008 21
Nuclear Power Aff
No nuke power – not enough energy

Nuclear Energy has improved but not increased
Sharon Squassoni, senior associate with the Nonproliferation Program at the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, “Risks and Realities: The “New Nuclear Energy Revival”, Arms Control Today, May 2007
<http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2007_05/squassoni.asp?print> [JH]
Concern about greenhouse gas emissions and energy security combined with forecasts of strong growth in
electricity demand has awakened dormant interest in nuclear energy. Yet, the industry has not yet fully
addressed the issues that have kept global nuclear energy capacity roughly the same for the last two
decades. Although nuclear safety has improved significantly, nuclear energy’s inherent vulnerabilities
regarding waste disposal, economic competitiveness, and proliferation remain. Moreover, nuclear security
concerns have increased since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
Nuclear Energy isn’t used nearly as much as other energy sources

Coal and hydroelectric power still dominate the electricity market, with 39 percent and 19 percent
shares, respectively, of world electricity generation. Nuclear energy accounts for about 16 percent of
that supply, and gas and oil produce 25 percent. Renewable energy accounts for 1-2 percent. States that use
nuclear energy to provide a significant portion of their electricity include Belgium, Bulgaria, France,
Hungary, Japan, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United
Kingdom. Some 20 percent of U.S. electricity is generated by nuclear energy.
WNDI 2008 22
Nuclear Power Aff
No nuke power – decommission in 50 years

All US nuclear reactors will be out of commission within 50 years
Dr. Charles Ferguson, physicist for CFR, “Nuclear Energy: Balancing Benefits and Risks,” Council on Foreign
Relations, April 2007. < http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/NuclearEnergyCSR28.pdf> [HBP]
In the coming decades, the U.S. nuclear industry will have to run faster on the treadmill of impending
nuclear power plant retirements to replace the aging fleet of reactors. Initially, commercial reactors
received forty-year licenses. While a number of reactors never reached their forty-year nominal life
spans before being decommissioned, much of the current fleet of reactors has, in recent years, received
twenty-year license renewals. As of the end of 2006, more than forty reactors have obtained twenty-year license extensions and
about a dozen more have applied for renewal. Figure 1 shows that even assuming all 103 currently operating reactors
receive twenty-year license renewals and no new reactors are constructed, the U.S. fleet will cease
operations by 2056.
WNDI 2008 23
Nuclear Power Aff
No nuke power – development abroad

Nuclear expansions in the status quo are going in uncertain directions and most of it will
happen outside of the US
Some nuclear expansion is already underway, but its direction is uncertain.[23] Where will expansion
take place? Will expansion be limited to reactors only, or will it include enrichment and reprocessing
facilities? What spent fuel disposal options will be necessary or desirable? With the exception of South Africa,
most of the growth in nuclear energy will occur in Asia and South Asia. One-half of the 26 reactors
now under construction are located in Asia. States with the most growth have full nuclear fuel cycles; China, Japan, and
India already have enrichment and reprocessing capabilities. South Korea continues to express interest in further developing a
pyroprocessing technique that does not separate plutonium from uranium, as a solution to growing stockpiles of spent fuel.
Status Quo policies will significantly increase nuclear energy solving the aff everywhere but
the United States
Assuming no significant policy changes emerge, nuclear energy is expected to grow to 416 gigawatts by
2030, about a 20 percent increase in capacity. This includes the retirement of 27 gigawatts of nuclear
energy in Europe. Much of the increase will come from China, which plans to install 40 gigawatts of
nuclear power by 2020; Japan, which plans to install 28 gigawatts by 2015; and India, which plans to
install 40 gigawatts by 2030. The case of India is uncertain, as its previous goals remain unmet and its current plans assume
buying a foreign LWR, a prospect that is far from assured.
WNDI 2008 24
Nuclear Power Aff
No nuke power – no planned reactors

Although the demand for energy is going to increase, there are no new nuclear reactors
planned for the future
School, IDEA: REVIVING THE NUCLEAR POWER OPTION IN THE UNITED STATES: USING
DOMESTIC ENERGY LAW TO CURE TWO PERCEPTIONS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW ILLEGALITY,
Hofstra Law Review, 35 Hofstra L. Rev. 425, Winter 2006, Lexis [JH]
Despite these advantages, the growth of the nuclear power industry has been moribund since the late 1970s because of domestic
concerns about cost, accidents, and waste disposal. n32 As a result, the nuclear energy contribution to meet the nation's total electric
demand hovers at about twenty percent. n33 If nothing changes in the calculus of the benefits and costs of nuclear power production, the
contribution of nuclear energy to meet the rising energy needs of the United States will decline in the future. n34 Existing nuclear
plants are operating at top efficiency and they are near the end of their useful lives, with no new plants
on the horizon. In turn, U.S. electric demand is expected to increase by forty-three percent over the
next twenty years requiring between 1300 and 1900 new power plants. n35 Without nuclear power
plants, the primary fuel source for those plants will be fossil fuels (coal, natural gas and oil), which are
the major contributors of GHG to the atmosphere from electric generation. n36 Renewable energy sources
presently contribute little more than two percent of the nation's total electric generation, excluding hydroelectricity (i.e. wind, solar,
geothermal). n37 Even if renewable capacity was trebled, it would still constitute only a very small portion of the total electric energy
needs of the country. Hydroelectric power provides between six and seven percent of the country's electricity. n38 It is fully developed in
the sense that nearly all rivers and streams capable of being used for production of [*432] hydroelectricity have been exploited. It is
estimated that fossil fuels, without a change in energy laws and policies, will provide eighty-six percent of the energy supply of the
United States in 2030. n39
WNDI 2008 25
Nuclear Power Aff
No nuke power – laundry list

US nuclear energy industry stopped in its tracks due to rising costs, construction delays,
accidents and disposal concerns
From the 1950s through the 1970s there was a pro-nuclear power consensus in the United States that
resulted in the birth and vigorous growth of the nuclear power industry. Rising costs, construction
delays, accidents, and waste disposal concerns shattered the pro-nuclear power [*435] consensus and
stopped the growth of the industry in its tracks.
WNDI 2008 26
Nuclear Power Aff
Yes global nuke power

Lots of countries have nuclear capabilities and others want it
Lack of strong nuclear expansion, however, has not stopped several countries from expressing interest in developing
enrichment capabilities, including Argentina, Australia, Canada, and South Africa. None of these
countries has a domestic reactor base that would require developing enrichment capability. Instead,
they may be interested in enrichment to keep their future options open and for export purposes. Brazil,
which is commissioning a new centrifuge enrichment plant at Resende, will likely produce more low-
enriched uranium than is needed for its consumption by 2015. If such decisions were made purely on economic
grounds, the thresholds for achieving economies of scale are high but not insurmountable.[24] One estimate is that indigenous centrifuge
enrichment becomes cost effective at the capacity level of 1.5 million separative work units, an amount required by 10 1-gigawatt plants.
Even then, such an enrichment plant is unlikely to be competitive with larger suppliers such as Urenco.[25] More than a dozen
countries without nuclear power are reportedly considering their nuclear energy options. These
include states in Europe (Poland and Turkey), the Middle East (Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia,
Syria, and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi
Arabia, and United Arab Emirates), Africa (Namibia), Central Asia (Georgia), and Asia (Australia,
Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam). It is unlikely that these states will pursue a full nuclear
fuel cycle in the short run, but they may also desire to keep their options open.
WNDI 2008 27
Nuclear Power Aff
Nuke power needed – electricity demand

Demand for electricity is inevitable; nuclear energy and coal are the only reliable sources
Predicting the amount of demand for new electricity generation is difficult, but it is easy to predict that
there will be at least some demand over the next decade. In this section, I argue that: (A) electricity demand
requires that electric utilities have access to several different types of power plants, including plants
that can provide reliable "base-load" capacity; (B) even with dramatic improvements in energy
conservation and efficiency, there will be a need for some substantial amount of new generating
capacity; (C) generating plants powered by natural gas, wind, solar, or water will not be able to produce
reliable base-load power within that time; and (D) no new technologies are likely to change these
conclusions within the next decade. To meet the demand for base-load power, the choice is between coal
and nuclear power. Electric utilities need to be able to have access to a "portfolio" of different types of generating plants.
Because electricity cannot be stored on a large scale, power generators must continually produce
power as it is consumed. Some users of electric power produce a relatively constant and predictable
demand for electricity, and this amount is known as "base-load." Electric utilities need reliable
generation sources with low operating costs for meeting base-load needs. Base-load power plants run
virtually without interruption to supply the continuous portion of electricity needs, as compared to the needs
that expand and contract seasonally or diurnally. Base-load plants are often called "must-run" plants, because they
will run for as long as possible at full load, and will produce the lowest overall power-generating costs
for this type of use. Today, many observers consider coal and nuclear power to be the only reliable
future sources of base-load power. An electric utility's portfolio will also include different sources of power that meet other,
equally important, needs. While base-load is fairly constant, electric utilities must be prepared for the times of the day and year when the
demand for electricity increases. Generating plants that cycle on and off to address those variations are known as "intermediate load"
plants. They usually have a higher operating cost but can be started up and shut down relatively quickly. Demand for electricity is
influenced by many different factors, including the weather, the strength of the economy, the price of electricity, and the use of high-
demand equipment and buildings. The history of the last fifty years has provided many examples of over-and under-estimation of
demand growth, but no evidence of any decline in demand for any multi-year period. The hot summer of 2006 provided a test of the
ability to make even short-run predictions of energy demand. California, having experienced severe shortages of electricity in 2000-
2001, had instituted programs to cut back on demand and increase supply that decision makers thought equipped the state to face future
hot summers, but the summer of 2006 forced various businesses to close at peak periods and severely strained the transmission network.
Conservation programs to reduce electricity demand can be divided into two categories: (1) conservation programs that shift more
electricity usage out of periods of peak usage and into times when demand is less (often called "peak-shaving"); and (2) efficiency-
enhancing programs that reduce the total amount of electricity used, such as programs to require more efficient appliances or to mandate
higher temperatures in air-conditioned buildings. Both types of demand management are being used in various places. Insofar as the
choice of the type of power plant to build is concerned, the peak-shaving programs and the efficient usage programs have differing
effects on that decision. Both should reduce the overall amount of new generating capacity needed, but peak-shaving will result in an
increase in base-load plants' share of overall generating capacity, because the usage removed from peak periods will be transferred to
times when base-load plants are needed. Other efficient-usage programs may not have any major impact on the choice of the type of
power plant to be constructed. Because Congress has mandated peak-shaving, and many industries are eager to adopt it, peak-shaving
programs are likely to help tilt the choice of new facilities toward base-load plants. California's efforts to encourage energy conservation
focused on incentives for the more efficient use of electricity on a daily and yearly basis by smoothing out the demand for electricity and
reducing peak needs. These have succeeded in persuading some users of electrical equipment to shift from using it on hot summer
afternoons, when demand for air conditioning is at its peak, to night time when demand is low, substantially reducing the ratio of peak to
base-load demand. In the short run, much of this conservation will be created by the trend toward the use of "smart meters." A "smart
meter" knows how much power you are using each hour of each day, and communicates the information back to the power company.
This makes it practical for an electric utility to charge higher rates for the use of electricity during peak hours, which in turn gives the
customer an incentive to schedule the use of electricity at times of lower demand - an incentive that is lacking when meters register only
gross monthly use. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 requires all electric utilities to make time-of-use rates available to all customers by
2007. As electricity rates increase, the use of equipment that uses less electricity overall, not just at peak periods, will likely increase.
When energy prices rose in the 1970s, an increased demand for such equipment was a definite factor in reducing the rate of increase in
annual demand for electricity. Even larger price increases might induce the government to impose mandatory requirements for more
efficient refrigeration and air conditioning, but it is hard to envision such requirements having a major impact during the next decade,
given the time needed to set standards, manufacture the equipment, and begin selling and using it. Finally, even if demand for
electricity stayed the same for the next decade, there would be a need for new generating plants.
Tighter air pollution controls are scheduled to be phased in within that period, and the prospect of
controls on greenhouse gas emissions will force plant owners to give more serious consideration to
replacing aging plants with new ones. In sum, for the purposes of this article, I am not concerned with
demonstrating how many new power plants will be needed, but only that some substantial number will
be needed. Wall Street seems to agree because 159 new coal-fired generating plants are being proposed
at various places in the United States.
WNDI 2008 28
Nuclear Power Aff
Nuke power needed – conversation fails

Increased conservation will not prevent the need for more electricity generation
Demand for electricity is influenced by many different factors, including the weather, the strength of
the economy, the price of electricity, and the use of high-demand equipment and buildings. The history
of the last fifty years has provided many examples of over-and under-estimation of demand growth, but no evidence of
any decline in demand for any multi-year period. The hot summer of 2006 provided a test of the ability to make even
short-run predictions of energy demand. California, having experienced severe shortages of electricity in 2000-2001, had instituted
programs to cut back on demand and increase supply that decision makers thought equipped the state to face future hot summers, but the
summer of 2006 forced various businesses to close at peak periods and severely strained the transmission network. Conservation
programs to reduce electricity demand can be divided into two categories: (1) conservation programs that shift more electricity usage out
of periods of peak usage and into times when demand is less (often called "peak-shaving"); and (2) efficiency-enhancing programs that
reduce the total amount of electricity used, such as programs to require more efficient appliances or to mandate higher temperatures in
air-conditioned buildings. Both types of demand management are being used in various places. Insofar as the choice of the type of power
plant to build is concerned, the peak-shaving programs and the efficient usage programs have differing effects on that decision. Both
should reduce the overall amount of new generating capacity needed, but peak-shaving will result in an increase in base-load plants'
share of overall generating capacity, because the usage removed from peak periods will be transferred to times when base-load plants are
needed. Other efficient-usage programs may not have any major impact on the choice of the type of power plant to be constructed.
Because Congress has mandated peak-shaving, and many industries are eager to adopt it, peak-shaving programs are likely to help tilt
the choice of new facilities toward base-load plants. California's efforts to encourage energy conservation focused on incentives for the
more efficient use of electricity on a daily and yearly basis by smoothing out the demand for electricity and reducing peak needs. These
have succeeded in persuading some users of electrical equipment to shift from using it on hot summer afternoons, when demand for air
conditioning is at its peak, to night time when demand is low, substantially reducing the ratio of peak to base-load demand. In the short
run, much of this conservation will be created by the trend toward the use of "smart meters." A "smart meter" knows how much power
you are using each hour of each day, and communicates the information back to the power company. This makes it practical for an
electric utility to charge higher rates for the use of electricity during peak hours, which in turn gives the customer an incentive to
schedule the use of electricity at times of lower demand - an incentive that is lacking when meters register only gross monthly use. The
Energy Policy Act of 2005 requires all electric utilities to make time-of-use rates available to all customers by 2007. As electricity
rates increase, the use of equipment that uses less electricity overall, not just at peak periods, will likely
increase. When energy prices rose in the 1970s, an increased demand for such equipment was a definite
factor in reducing the rate of increase in annual demand for electricity. Even larger price increases
might induce the government to impose mandatory requirements for more efficient refrigeration and
air conditioning, but it is hard to envision such requirements having a major impact during the next
decade, given the time needed to set standards, manufacture the equipment, and begin selling and using it. Within that period, energy
efficiency regulation is likely to focus on the easier and quicker methods of reducing peak use. Finally, even if demand for
electricity stayed the same for the next decade, there would be a need for new generating plants.
Tighter air pollution controls are scheduled to be phased in within that period, and the prospect of
controls on greenhouse gas emissions will force plant owners to give more serious consideration to
replacing aging plants with new ones. In sum, for the purposes of this article, I am not concerned with
demonstrating how many new power plants will be needed, but only that some substantial number will
be needed. Wall Street seems to agree because 159 new coal-fired generating plants are being proposed
at various places in the United States.
WNDI 2008 29
Nuclear Power Aff
Nuke power needed – coal coming

In the status quo, if energy demands rise, coal will be used to supply energy.
Lackner,Sachs The Earth Institute of Columbia <http://www.physorg.com/news66917418.html>
With oil prices reaching near near-record highs in recent weeks, calls have grown louder for the U.S. to
develop new sources of affordable, domestic energy. Work by experts from The Earth Institute at
Columbia University suggests that relatively low-cost alternatives already exist to meet the country's'
growing energy demand that would at the same time reduce the need to rely on oil supplies from the Middle
East and Latin America.A report published by Klaus S. Lackner and Jeffrey D. Sachs of The Earth
Institute at Columbia University that appears in the most recent issue of Brookings Papers on Economic
Activity states that coal alone could satisfy the country's energy needs of the twenty-first century. In
particular, coal liquefaction, or the process of deriving liquid fuels from coal, is already being used in places
and with expanded infrastructure could provide gasoline, diesel fuel and jet fuel at levels well below current
prices. Moreover, they argue that environmental constraints such as increased carbon dioxide emissions
arising from greater use of coal and other fossil fuels could be avoided for less than 1 percent of gross world
product by 2050."[With widespread use of coal liquefaction] the long-term price of liquid hydrocarbon fuels
may be lower than it is today, even allowing for pessimistic forecasts for oil and gas reserves," the authors
write. "Even that with the most conservative assumptions about learning curves, it appears quite safe to
predict the cost of synthetic oil from coal or other processes, after some transitional pains, will be below
$30 per barrel." Sachs and Lackner also point out that the large deposits of coal in the U.S. and
worldwide make it less prone to the political uncertainties that currently afflict world oil prices.
Consumers see coal as an alternative to oil as prices soar

Chris Kraul. “Coal carves a place in the future of global energy,” LA Times. 07/20/08.
<http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-coal20-2008jul20,0,6068490.story>
As the global price of oil and natural gas soars, some customers are taking a new look at other fuels --
including coal. And countries such as China and India, whose demand is contributing to the price of
petroleum, need even more energy. Besides petroleum products, they are buying vast amounts of coal,
as well. The worldwide demand for oil has its own set of environmental consequences -- drilling in pristine
areas where it previously was uneconomical and continued emission of greenhouse gases. But
environmentalists warn that renewed reliance on coal takes the threat to another level.
WNDI 2008 30
Nuclear Power Aff
Nuke power good – electricity – more efficient

Nuclear Energy Is More Efficient
Global nuclear energy capacity is currently about 368 gigawatts, with approximately 435 nuclear
power reactors operating in 30 states. Three countries account for one-half of all nuclear power
reactors: the United States (103), France (59), and Japan (55).[5] Most of the growth in nuclear energy
occurred following the oil shocks of the 1970s. The low cost of uranium also helped make nuclear
energy attractive. New nuclear energy development, however, started to slow after the Three Mile Island (1979) and Chernobyl
accidents (1986) and after a drop in natural gas prices in the 1990s made gas-powered turbines more attractive than nuclear alternatives
in Europe and the United States. Nonetheless, nuclear energy has been able to increase its share of
electricity generation largely through better efficiency.
Nuclear Energy is attractive for several reasons

Sharp increases in oil and natural gas prices have made nuclear energy more attractive in the last few
years. Whereas oil was priced at below $10 per barrel in 1999, it rose above $60 per barrel in March
2007.[12] Natural gas prices are often pegged to oil prices, and these too have increased dramatically. In
the United States and Europe, new electricity generation in the 1990s was fired by natural gas rather than
coal, but this is now changing.
WNDI 2008 31
Nuclear Power Aff
Nuke power good – warming

Nuclear Energy would solve Climate Change and Energy Security
Prices of alternative energy sources are just one factor in national energy policies. Improved safety and efficiency, at least in
U.S. reactors, also has contributed to more attention to nuclear energy, as well as to regulatory
streamlining and incentives for new nuclear power plants. Nuclear energy also is increasingly being
viewed as part of the solution to climate change and energy security.[13]
WNDI 2008 32
Nuclear Power Aff
Nuke power good – laundry list

Nuclear energy has many benefits over fossil fuels
John Ryden, engineer and science writer, “Three Mile Island Proves Nuclear Power is Safe,” Seattle Examiner,
July 2, 2008 <http://www.examiner.com/x-325-Global-Warming-Examiner~y2008m7d2-Three-Mile-Island-Proves-
Nuclear-Power-is-Safe> [HBP]
Nuclear power has a major advantage over fossil fuel power sources when it comes to global warming.
Generating power from nuclear fuel does not produce any carbon dioxide. Shouldn’t we be retiring
our coal-fired power plants and replacing them with nuclear plants? The public is concerned about
nuclear power for two reasons. The first is the question of what to do with the nuclear waste. I talked about
that in my previous article on ‘Nuclear Fuel is Renewable’. The second major concern is about nuclear plant safety.
What does it mean to be safe? A nuclear accident could affect millions of people through increased exposure
to radiation. How about comparing nuclear plants to the coal-fired power plants they would replace.
People generally consider them to be safe. Coal contains a large amount of dangerous compounds
including trace amounts of uranium and thorium. These are naturally occurring radioactive compounds. While the
amount of these compounds in coal is a very small percentage, large amounts of coal are burned in a coal-fired power plant. A 1,000
MW coal plant will release as much as 5 tons of uranium and 13 tons of thorium into the atmosphere
each year. That is many orders of magnitude greater than the radiation released from a typical nuclear
plant. Coal plants also releases huge quantities mercury into the atmosphere. It is estimated that as
Much as 48 tons of mercury are emitted from U.S. coal-fired power plants into the atmosphere each
year. (The tall smokestack is used to disperse these pollutants over a very large area so they don’t kill all the people in the immediate
vicinity of the plant.) In addition, large amounts of sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxides produce respiratory problems in people and damage
our forests. About 70,000 people die each year from the effects of air pollution, more than the 40,000 people who die each year in
automobile accidents. Based on the emissions, I would rather live next to a nuclear plant than a coal plant.
Nuclear energy solves the world food crisis, global warming, and global development
Sergei Kirienko, Director of the Federal Atomic Energy Agency, “The Nuclear Solution,” The Guardian, July 10,
2008. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/10/nuclear.energy?gusrc=rss&feed=worldnews> [HBP]
All the major issues that were on the G8 agenda – the food crisis, global warming and uneven
distribution of development resources among countries – are closely interlinked, first and foremost, to
a shortage of energy and resulting price hikes. Previous forecasts regarding the growth of energy consumption and the
development of new energy technologies have not come true. Consumption is growing at a much faster pace, while new energy sources
will not become commercially viable before 2030. Oil prices have risen, but even the $130-$140 per barrel will not
fund new fields capable of satisfying the world economy. Alternative energy sources are currently
unable to provide the necessary scale. And their costs confirm the maxim that energy is never cheap: witness the price of
ethanol. Nuclear power is not the only means of overcoming the crises, but it is undoubtedly a major
instrument in resolving the three problems on the G8 agenda. Nuclear power plants in Europe help
prevent the annual emission of 700m tons of CO2, and in Japan the figure is 270m tons. In Russia the
share of nuclear power is set to grow from 16% to 20-25% by 2030, which means that new nuclear
power plants in our country will reduce greenhouse gas emission by between 10-15%. That is not a mere
declaration, but a decision based on concrete sources of financing. Until now, the development of nuclear power focused on increased
single-unit reactor capacity and thus unfortunately denied the benefits of atomic power to countries with under-developed energy
networks, mainly on the African continent. However, today the nuclear power industry is ready to offer to the market small and medium-
yield reactors, which may open-up prospects for a larger number of countries. Another major benefit of nuclear power is
its capability to simultaneously desalinate water. This will help alleviate the food crisis in two ways.
African countries lack fresh water to develop agriculture, and fresh water may become a major
casualty of the food crisis. Access to reliable and cheap sources of energy is a major condition for
sustainable economic development of any country. A growing number of industrialised countries and
emerging economies realise the necessity to begin developing on their territories' peaceful atomic
power technologies. Up to 600 new nuclear reactors are planned worldwide by 2030. This increases the
importance of enhanced restrictions on the use of atomic power. It is the right of any country to enjoy the benefits of peaceful atomic
energy. But it is the right of the world community to demand unconditional compliance with security norms and non-proliferation
guarantees.
[Continued 1/2]
WNDI 2008 33
Nuclear Power Aff
Nuke power good – laundry list

[Continued 2/2]
to demand unconditional compliance with security norms and non-proliferation guarantees. Russia is both initiating the creation of a
new security system for the development of nuclear power and working to launch enhanced mechanisms to guarantee nuclear non-
proliferation. We have already initiated the creation of an infrastructure of international centers to
provide nuclear fuel services, granting equal access to atomic energy to all the interested parties while
ensuring strict compliance with non-proliferation requirements under International Atomic Energy
Agency control. As an example, an international uranium enrichment centre has been created and is operating in the Russian city of
Angarsk. Angarsk will have a guaranteed reserve of low-enriched uranium, managed by the IAEA board of governors, guaranteeing fuel
supplies to any country of the world regardless of any political reasons. As Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore has said,
opposition to nuclear power was a mistake and it is now a major means to counter global warming. The
disappearance of old stereotypes on the political level will accelerate the development of nuclear power. That will help quickly lift non-
market barriers in Europe and America, imposed to protect domestic producers, but which is a hindrance when the market faces
shortages. A clear political signal will also guide the banking community, which is currently reluctant to get involved in nuclear power
plant investment projects, due to a few radical pressure groups. We need broad international cooperation to solve the crises the world
faces. We will continue to propose such an approach to our colleagues in the other G8 countries, especially when it comes to the
peaceful use of atomic power.
WNDI 2008 34
Nuclear Power Aff
Nuke power good- environment

Nuclear materials are much more accessible and cleaner than coal
The mining of uranium admittedly can create some of the same adverse ecological impacts as the mining of
coal. The difference, however, is that while the coal-fired power plants in the United States used slightly
over a billion tons of coal in 2005, nuclear power plants used only 66 million pounds of uranium oxide.
Thus the scale of the impact from uranium mining is not in the same ball park as the impact of coal
mining. Virtually all uranium mines currently operating in the United States are underground mines
or use the in situ leaching method, which both have much less impact on the environment than open pit
uranium mining. Moreover, coal-fired power plants produce half the electricity in the United States
while nuclear power plants produce one-fifth. In addition, unlike coal, uranium used in power plants
can be recycled and used again. At the present time, the United States does not reprocess its nuclear
fuel, but countries such as Great Britain, France, Japan, and Russia do so on a regular basis. The
policy issues related to reprocessing are beyond the scope of this article, but it should be noted that the
possibility of future reprocessing further reduces the slim risk that supplies of uranium will run out,
despite the fact that the known uranium resources would provide enough fuel to support four times the
current amount of worldwide nuclear electricity generation for the next 80 years. Furthermore, uranium
is not the only element that can be used as nuclear fuel; India is producing nuclear fuel from thorium, of
which it has ample supplies.
Nuclear Power is key to decrease GHGs through electricity generation and transportation
Nuclear power is one of the most readily available domestic energy sources that can be used to achieve
energy independence. It has a fifty-year record of safe operational experience with over one hundred power plants. n29 There
are an estimated 498 million tons of uranium ore reserves in the United States n30 to fuel a revived nuclear
power industry. In addition, Australia and Canada, two close U.S. allies, have most of the world's uranium reserves. Unlike
fossil fuel electric power, nuclear electric power does not produce any GHGs. In 2005, over 200 million
barrels of oil were used directly for electric generation. n31 This consumption can be replaced by
nuclear generation, which would help to reduce U.S. foreign oil dependence. In addition, the heavy
reliance on the automobile in the United States is a major source of both oil consumption and of GHG
emissions. The movement to introduce electric and electric hybrid cars to the U.S. automobile market
is an attempt to reduce oil use and GHG emissions. However, if electric batteries used in these cars are
recharged with fossil fuel generated [*431] electricity, little is achieved to reduce GHG emissions
because the source of those emissions is simply moved from the tailpipe to the smokestack. In a revived
nuclear power industry, additional GHG emission reductions could be achieved by recharging electric
car batteries with electricity produced from nuclear power plants.
WNDI 2008 35
Nuclear Power Aff
Loan Guarantees good – more $ needed

Current appropriated funds for loan guarantees are not enough; there should be no caps
Dipka Bhambhani. “Limits on loan guarantee program seen blunting its impact on nuclear revival,” 06/09/08.
<LEXIS>
Spurgeon said, "for us to be able to put the amount of nuclear energy into use that we believe is required in
order for us to meet both energy needs and reduce our carbon emissions, requires many more nuclear
plants than can be supported by the current cap on loan guarantees." The Congress must appropriate more
money or eliminate the cap on the guarantees, the assistant secretary said. "The subsidy cost is paid by the applicants. Just
like with the Export-Import Bank, this is not something that, run properly, would cost the taxpayer a dime," Spurgeon said. No DOE
solicitation yet DOE has not yet issued a solicitation for new nuclear projects that would be financed through the loan guarantee
program, and the department cannot award the assistance to utilities until they file for a construction and operating license (COL) at the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Bowman said the loan guarantee program is "hamstrung" by the loan volume.
He said of the nine applications for 15 plants currently pending before NRC, only four to eight would
be online by 2016. "Part of the reason is financing. But that $18.5 billion that's available for nuclear,
wouldn't even support that modest approach, that first wave of four to eight plants," Bowman said. Paul Farr, PPL
Corporation's chief financial officer, said "financing is the most significant aspect and most daunting prospect" in deciding to build a
nuclear plant, and even filing a COL. Farr said PPL is spending about $80 million to $100 million to prepare its COL application, which
it expects to file with NRC in September. It is planning on a loan guarantee. He noted, "$18.5 billion is nowhere near
sufficient."
Loan guarantee caps are stopping progress of civilian nuclear development

Cathy Cash. “House panel examines climate bills, but no movement expected this year,”06/23/08. <LEXIS>
Frank Bowman, the president and CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute, told lawmakers that his industry expects to
see four to eight new nuclear plants online by 2016. But with more financial support from Congress,
the industry could add as many as 50 new nuclear plants by 2030, Bowman said. He urged the committee
to support a "clean energy bank" to provide loan guarantees and other financial support for nuclear power
development.
American companies need loan guarantees for nuclear energy facilities

World Watch Institute, “Nuclear Prospects Unclear,” 2008. <http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5795> [HBP]
The United States saw no nuclear construction starts for the 29th straight year in 2007, though one reactor
was restarted after a 22-year shutdown, and construction resumed on another reactor that had been stalled since 1988. While electric
utilities submitted applications for seven new reactors, and government regulators expect additional
applications in 2008, industry officials are seeking additional federal loan guarantees as a prerequisite
to starting plant construction. The U.S. credit rating agency Moody's has cautioned that many utilities
are underestimating the cost of new plants and that nuclear investment could damage their credit
ratings.
WNDI 2008 36
Nuclear Power Aff
Loan guarantees good

Loan guarantees are key to stimulating the nuclear energy industry
Thomas G. Adams, health physicist at TG Adams and Associates, “Federal Loan Guarantees Key to Nuclear Plant
Construction,” The Buffalo Times, June 8, 2008. http://www.buffalonews.com/248/story/365369.html
it is time to stimulate the use of nuclear energy. Only then
With America’s greenhouse-gas emissions increasing daily,
will we be able to deal with the challenges of atmospheric pollution and climate change, while meeting
our nation’s growing need for electricity. Electricity companies plan to build more than 30 new nuclear power plants in the
United States, but few, if any, are likely to get beyond the drawing- board stage until the government provides loan guarantees. Because
high up-front costs have made nuclear plant construction potentially risky, Wall Street investors say federal loan
guarantees are needed in the event that unanticipated delays from intervention or litigation drive up the cost of construction, as
happened during the 1980s. To facilitate the construction of new plants, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved
several plant sites, certified designs for new reactors and modified its plant licensing process. If nuclear plant construction
proceeds pretty much on schedule, loan guarantees will cost taxpayers nothing. Congress two years ago
approved loan guarantees for the first few new nuclear plants. But it conditioned the loan guarantees
on being awarded no later than 2009 and then only to companies possessing a joint license to construct
and operate a new nuclear plant. Since no company has yet to obtain such a license from the
commission and the 2009 window is fast closing, the deadline for eligibility should be extended. The Bush
administration and Congress need to take prompt action. Since nuclear power accounts for more than 70 percent of
carbon-free electricity generation in the United States, not to increase its use would be folly. Nuclear
power is safe and reliable. And it’s produced here in this country, free of foreign interference. Some
environmental groups claim that renewable energy sources can meet our needs and that nuclear power is no longer necessary. But
renewable sources like solar and wind, while part of the answer to global warming, cannot provide the large amounts of base-load
electricity needed to drive our economy. Solar panels and wind turbines generate power only intermittently, requiring back-up energy
from fossil fuels. Although strongly supported and promoted by the federal government and many states, solar and wind combined
provide only 3 percent of the nation’s electricity, compared to 52 percent from coal and 20 percent from nuclear power. With electricity
demand on the upswing, record amounts of coal and natural gas being burned and scientists warning about the potentially devastating
impact of global warming, we are headed for a perfect storm. It is encouraging that the presidential candidates recognize the need to
control greenhouse-gas emissions. Sen. John McCain is principal author of legislation, introduced last year, that seeks to cut emissions to
60 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. A longtime supporter of nuclear power, McCain said on the Senate floor that the measure
proposes “adding new reactor designs for nuclear power.” He said, “The idea that nuclear power should play no role in our future energy
mix is an unsustainable position. At a minimum we must make efforts to maintain nuclear energy’s level of contribution, so that this
capacity is not replaced with higher-emitting alternatives.” The legislation calls for federal funding to develop clean-energy
technologies, including new nuclear power plants. Among the bill’s co-sponsors are Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. By all
measures, there has been a significant improvement in nuclear safety since the 1970s. Industrial and nuclear safety records are
consistently better than ever in more than four decades of operation. Unplanned automatic plant shutdowns, workplace accident rate,
collective radiation exposure and other indices of plant safety continue to meet tough goals set by the Institute of Nuclear Power
Operations. And spent fuel is being stored safely and securely at nuclear plant sites, while work proceeds on developing a permanent
repository for nuclear waste in Nevada. The upshot is that the cost of producing nuclear- generated electricity is less than electricity
coming from fossil-fuel plants. Last year, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute, the 104 U. S. nuclear plants produced electricity, on
average, at a cost of 1.7 cents per kilowatt-hour (kwh). By comparison, electricity cost 2.3 cents per kwh from coal-fueled plants, 6.7
cents per kwh from natural gas plants, and 9.6 cents per kwh from oil plants. It is expected that new nuclear plants will have even lower
production costs given improved designs that should cost less to operate and maintain. What will it take to build the next
nuclear plant? In short, some insurance in the form of loan guarantees to cover the potential cost and
schedule impacts of new plant construction. Now is the time to move forward with nuclear power. It’s
the key to our energy security and environmental well-being.
WNDI 2008 37
Nuclear Power Aff
Loan guarantees good

Nuclear firms say Loan Guarantees critical to expanding civilian nuclear power in the US
Margaret Ryan, Writer for Inside Energy, “Nuclear firms say loan guarantees are key to building reactors in 2008”,
Nuclear Energy; Pg. 14, February 11, 2008, Lexis
The heads of two US electric utilities said last week they would begin construction on new nuclear reactors
by the end of the year if the Energy Department implements its plan for a federal loan-guarantee
program. Michael Wallace, the president and CEO of Constellation Nuclear Energy, said his company
plans to break ground on a new unit at its Calvert Cliffs plant in Maryland in December. Similarly, James Miller, the
president and CEO of PPL, said his firm intends to move ahead with an additional reactor at its plant
in Berwick, Pennsylvania. Speaking at a Platts nuclear conference in Rockville, Maryland, on Tuesday, Wallace said the loan
guarantees are the sole issue standing between Constellation and a decision to order a new nuclear plant.
Wallace said Constellation has its loan-guarantee application ready to go, and is hoping DOE will begin soliciting proposals by May. He
called the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which authorized the loan guarantees and other incentives for new reactors, "a watershed" bill. He
said the nuclear industry, after years of not building a new plant, needs about a decade of assistance to get started. After that, he said,
nuclear "needs no federal subsidy." Wallace said Constellation is concerned about the risk of rising commodity prices and global supply
chain constrictions, and knows nuclear costs will be above $3,000 per installed kW. But, he said, given expected future energy
prices, he believes that nuclear will come in "the acceptable zone." Miller, who also spoke at the Platts conference,
agreed that the DOE loan guarantees were key to his firm moving forward with its construction plans. "Without them, we're
out," he said. The company already operates the Susquehanna-1 and Susquehanna-2 reactors in Berwick. Miller said he did not believe
new coal projects were viable, given the current political atmosphere and growing environmental concerns. Miller predicted that carbon-capture
and storage technologies are still "15 years off" or more, and he said that attempts to store CO2 would create "NUMBY ? not under my backyard"
opposition. Miller also called carbon sequestration "the great lawyer paradise of the decade." PPL now is 50% coal and 40% nuclear. Dennis
Spurgeon, DOE's assistant secretary for nuclear energy, said getting new reactors under construction is a top priority for DOE. In remarks to the
conference, Spurgeon called the Nuclear Power 2010 program a "success story" that shows how government and industry can work together to
"jump start" the nuclear industry. He cited the Bush administration's fiscal 2009 request for $242 million, more than double the previous year's
allocation, to bring Nuclear Power 2010 to a successful close. The US currently gets about 20% of its electricity from nuclear power. In order the
maintain that level, at least 45 new nuclear units will need to come online by 2030, Spurgeon said. He noted that DOE and the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission are jointly sponsoring a February 19-21 conference, "Life Beyond 60," to explore extending operations of today's
nuclear units.
Separately, DOE's Idaho National Laboratory and the Electric Power Research Institute announced a joint
initiative last week for research and development in materials for light-water reactors. Spurgeon said the
project will have 10 objectives, including sustaining the current high performance of nuclear units,
transitioning older control systems to digital, improving lifetimes beyond the currently contemplated
60 years, and addressing electrical infrastructure issues nationwide. Meanwhile, the director of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission's Office of New Reactors, said NRC has received "10 or fewer" inquiries about applying in 2010 or later for
licenses to build nuclear plants. William Borchardt, who also spoke at the Platts conference, declined to identify the companies that have
made the inquiries, saying such information is proprietary. But Borchardt said that if the applications for more than 20 units that are now
on NRC's schedule materialize, his office "will begin to run out of work" after 2010 unless additional applications are submitted. NRC's
current list of expected new plant applications does not include any submittals past 2009. Asked whether he believes NRC's anticipated
42-month review schedule can be significantly shortened, Borchardt said he wants to "get through the first couple" of applications before
making that determination. He said, however, that he is "highly confident" that if subsequent applications are standardized, something
NRC anticipates, reviews can be somewhat shorter. The need for the 42-month schedule has been questioned by both industry and some
members of Congress.
WNDI 2008 38
Nuclear Power Aff
Proliferation– Uniqueness
The US has created policies to stop proliferation, but could do more

Taylor Burke, J.D., University of Tulsa, 2006; B.A., Political Science and History, University of Tulsa, 2002
“NUCLEAR ENERGY AND PROLIFERATION: PROBLEMS, OBSERVATIONS, AND PROPOSALS” Boston
University Journal of Science and Technology Law” Winter 2006, Lexis [JH]
The United States has developed a number of policies aimed at curbing the threats of proliferation,
ranging from technological to diplomatic solutions. While the United States has had some success in the
area of curbing proliferation, the United States could do much more to address the issue. A "Cooperative
Threat Reduction" As a result of the efforts of Senator Richard Lugar and former Senator Sam Nunn, the "Nunn-Lugar"
Program, otherwise known as Cooperative Threat Reduction ("CTR"), attempts to address the uses of loose
nuclear weapon materials in Russia and other nations. n129 The fear is that Russian nuclear weapon or reactor
components could be bought or stolen from Russian facilities, given their lax security. n130 The task of dismantling these
weapons has proven to be very difficult.
The US has programs that control the spread of technology

Michael Angwin, executive director of the Australian Uranium Association, “Uranium the key to curbing climate
change”, The Advertiser, April 29, 2008, Lexis [JH]
For example, following proposals from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Russia, and in connection
with the U.S.-led Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), there are moves to establish international
uranium-enrichment centres so as to supply the world's growing need for nuclear fuel while controlling
the spread of the technology and the risk. Our Government's non-proliferation stance gives Australia
an opportunity to make a valuable contribution to policy development in this area. People would probably
still ask, however, what is the risk of companies operating civil nuclear power enrichment plants or the countries in which they operate
(such as Britain and the U.S.) allowing the plants to produce highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons. Bearing in mind the high
probability of detection of such crude breaches of their Non-Proliferation Treaty obligations and the impact of that on their prestige,
credibility and influence, the prospects of companies or countries doing that are very small.
WNDI 2008 39
Nuclear Power Aff
Proliferation- tech causes spread

Using nuclear power doesn’t cause proliferation, spread of technology does
Michael Angwin, executive director of the Australian Uranium Association, “Uranium the key to curbing climate
change”, The Advertiser, April 29, 2008, Lexis [JH]
IF the world's nuclear power revival is to be sustainable, the governance arrangements for it will have to be as
effective as possible. Accounting for nuclear material, on which Jim Falk and Bill Williams place great emphasis (``Scientists drop
nuclear bombshell'', The Advertiser, 22/4/08), is important. But their contentions about the strength or otherwise of nuclear materials
accounting is really the small picture. The bigger picture is the spread of nuclear technology. Proliferation risk does not
arise primarily from trade in uranium, however extensive it is. It arises from the technology used to produce nuclear
fuel. Constraining the growth of the Australian uranium industry will not reduce proliferation risk.
WNDI 2008 40
Nuclear Power Aff
Proliferation- US Solves
Increased Civilian Nuclear Programs deter from proliferation
Daniel C. Rislove University of Wisconsin Law School. Winter 2007. <Lexis>.
Second, the presence of a domestic nuclear energy program may actually enhance a state's self-
perception as "developed" and increase its desire to behave as a responsible state, e.g., to comply with
the NPT. It has been suggested that in every case, states that did develop nuclear weapons acquired nuclear
technology for the express purpose of [*1092] developing those weapons. n166 A few, like Argentina,
Brazil, and South Africa, gave up their nuclear weapons ambitions with the implementation of the NPT. n167
Still others, most of Europe for example, have opted for purely civilian nuclear programs. n168 Although
it is difficult to find direct evidence of motive in the secretive world of nuclear weapons programs, the
historical record shows very little evidence of peaceful nuclear energy programs resulting in later
decisions to pursue nuclear weapons.
Empirically, US Civilian Nuclear Programs stop Proliferation

David A. Koplow and Philip G. Schrag. Professors of Law at Georgetown. “Carrying a big carrot: linking
multilateral disarmament and development assistance,” 06/91. <LEXIS>
A comparison with the NPT is illustrative here, for that treaty is the closest current analogue to what we
propose, and the practical shortcomings of that set of exchange arrangements can guide future negotiators.
Under the NPT -- in addition to the basic ban on the further spread of nuclear weapons n164 -- the
parties undertook to share the then-dazzling promise of civilian nuclear power. n165 In particular, the
nuclear "have" states promised in article IV of the Treaty to "cooperate in contributing [*1034] . . . to
the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the
territories of non-nuclear weapon States Parties to the Treaty, with due consideration for the needs of the
developing areas of the world." n166 This language was widely understood at the time to be a part of an
essential tradeoff, ensuring the nonnuclear states that, if they agreed to abandon any nuclear weapons
aspirations, they would still share the anticipated bounty of emerging technology related to civilian
nuclear power production. n167 Within a few years after the treaty was negotiated, however, several
Western states, particularly the United States, lost their ardor for nuclear power plants and became
less interested in developing and promoting that form of energy. n168 International nuclear commerce
became less frequent, and the anticipated level of sharing the benefits of nuclear power has never been
attained. n169 Third [*1035] world expectations that they had traded their right to build nuclear weapons in
exchange for atomic development assistance have therefore been profoundly disappointed. n170 Oswaldo De
Rivero, the president of the 1990 NPT review conference, accordingly highlighted the need to redress this
imbalance by elaborating the existing treaty regime in a way that provides additional economic incentives,
tied to the needs of individual developing states, to make the treaty more attractive to nonparties.
Civilian nuclear energy programs do not increase nuclear proliferation

Daniel Rislove, Professor of Physics at University of Wisconsin, “Global Warming v. Non-Proliferation: The Time
Has Come for Nations to Reassert Their Right to Peaceful Use of Nuclear Energy,” University of Wisconsin Law
Journal, Winter 2007. < http://hosted.law.wisc.edu/wilj/issues/24/4/rislove.pdf> [HBP]
A natural question to ask is how the presence of a peaceful nuclear energy program changes the factors
involved in deciding whether or not to seek nuclear weapons. First, the presence of a nuclear energy
program may negatively affect the sense of security felt by neighboring states if they believe it is a front for
a clandestine weapons program. However, a strict IAEA inspection regime can help to mitigate such
concerns. It should also be noted that building additional nuclear power plants in states with existing
nuclear energy programs will not significantly affect the security interests of other non-nuclear states.
Second, the presence of a domestic nuclear energy program may actually enhance a state’s self-
perception as “developed” and increase its desire to behave as a responsible state, e.g., to comply with
the NPT. It has been suggested that in every case, states that did develop nuclear weapons acquired
nuclear technology for the express purpose of developing those weapons. A few, like Argentina, Brazil, and
South Africa, gave up their nuclear weapons ambitions with the implementation of the NPT...
WNDI 2008 41
Nuclear Power Aff
Proliferation- US Solves
Cooperation over nuclear energy leads to the technology that prevents proliferation
Joint statement by President Bush and President Putin Regulatory Intelligence Data July 16, 2006
The United States and the Russian Federation believe that strengthening their cooperation in civil
nuclear energy is in the strategic interests of both our countries. It will serve as an additional assurance of
access for other nations to economical and environmentally safe peaceful nuclear energy. The United States
and the Russian Federation are working together to meet the challenges posed by the combination of
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and international terrorism. We recognize the devastation
that could befall our peoples and the world community if nuclear weapons or materials or other weapons of
mass destruction were to fall into the hands of terrorists. We are closely cooperating to lessen that
unacceptable danger, including by strengthening the nonproliferation regime and ensuring the security of
nuclear weapons and fissile materials. Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy The United
States and the Russian Federation are convinced that reliable and sufficient energy supplies are the
cornerstone of sustainable economic development and prosperity for all nations, and a necessary condition
for maintaining international stability. Today nuclear energy is a proven technology for providing reliable
electric power without emissions of greenhouse gases, and is an essential part of any solution to meet
growing energy demand. We share the view that nuclear energy has an essential role in the promotion of
energy security, which is an issue of special concern for the leaders of the G-8. Advancing nuclear energy
will require further development of innovative technologies that reduce the risk of proliferation,
provide for safe management of waste, are economically viable, and are environmentally safe. Being
consistent in our approach to assure access to the benefits of nuclear energy for all nations complying with
their non-proliferation obligations, we have each proposed initiatives on the development of a global nuclear
energy infrastructure, specifically the Russian proposal to establish a system of international centers to
provide nuclear fuel services, including uranium enrichment, under International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) safeguards, and the U.S. proposal for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership to develop innovative
nuclear reactor and fuel cycle technologies. Following up on these initiatives, the United States and the
Russian Federation intend to work together, actively involving the IAEA, to allow all nations to enjoy the
benefits of nuclear energy without pursuing uranium enrichment and spent fuel reprocessing capabilities. The
United States and the Russian Federation together with four other nuclear fuel supplier states have also
proposed a concept for reliable access to nuclear fuel for consideration and development at the IAEA. We
call upon other countries to join us to facilitate the safe and secure expansion of nuclear energy worldwide.
Proceeding from our national interests and common goals, and recognizing the benefits of civil commercial
nuclear trade, we express our intent to develop bilateral cooperation in the peaceful use of nuclear energy. We
have directed our Governments to begin negotiations with the purpose of concluding an agreement between
the United States and the Russian Federation on cooperation in the peaceful use of nuclear energy.
Increased civilian Nuclear Power wont increase international proliferation and may work
to decrease it
Third, there are concerns about nuclear weapons proliferation [*434] resulting from the conversion of
nuclear power plant fuel into nuclear weapons. However, proliferation is not a problem inside the
United States. It is a problem abroad in countries like Iran and North Korea. In any event, the July 18,
2005 agreement of the United States to share advanced nuclear plant technology with India, which is
not a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, should remove concerns about proliferation from
a revived U.S. nuclear power industry from the calculus. n50 If the United States is not concerned about
nuclear proliferation from its nuclear power plant technology being used to make bombs in India, then
it should hardly be much of a factor in considering the revival of the U.S. nuclear power industry.
WNDI 2008 42
Nuclear Power Aff
Coal Advantage-Laundry List

Burning Coal causes disease, destroys wild life and the environment
Union of Concerned Scientists Environmental impacts of coal power: air pollution” 8/15/2005
<http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c02c.html>
Burning coal is a leading cause of smog, acid rain, global warming, and air toxics. In an average year, a
typical coal plant generates: * 3,700,000 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2), the primary human cause of
global warming--as much carbon dioxide as cutting down 161 million trees. * 10,000 tons of sulfur
dioxide (SO2), which causes acid rain that damages forests, lakes, and buildings, and forms small
airborne particles that can penetrate deep into lungs. * 500 tons of small airborne particles, which can
cause chronic bronchitis, aggravated asthma, and premature death, as well as haze obstructing
visibility. * 10,200 tons of nitrogen oxide (NOx), as much as would be emitted by half a million late-
model cars. NOx leads to formation of ozone (smog) which inflames the lungs, burning through lung
tissue making people more susceptible to respiratory illness. * 720 tons of carbon monoxide (CO),
which causes headaches and place additional stress on people with heart disease. * 220 tons of
hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds (VOC), which form ozone. * 170 pounds of mercury, where
just 1/70th of a teaspoon deposited on a 25-acre lake can make the fish unsafe to eat. * 225 pounds of
arsenic, which will cause cancer in one out of 100 people who drink water containing 50 parts per billion.
* 114 pounds of lead, 4 pounds of cadmium, other toxic heavy metals, and trace amounts of uranium.
Coal burning releases mass amounts toxic

Union of Concerned Scientists “Environmental impacts of coal power: wastes generated” 8/15/2005
<http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c02d.html>
Solid waste Waste created by a typical 500-megawatt coal plant includes more than 125,000 tons of ash and
193,000 tons of sludge from the smokestack scrubber each year. Nationally, more than 75% of this waste is
disposed of in unlined, unmonitored onsite landfills and surface impoundments. Toxic substances in the
waste -- including arsenic, mercury, chromium, and cadmium -- can contaminate drinking water
supplies and damage vital human organs and the nervous system. One study found that one out of every
100 children who drink groundwater contaminated with arsenic from coal power plant wastes were at
risk of developing cancer. Ecosystems too have been damaged -- sometimes severely or permanently -- by
the disposal of coal plant waste. Cooling water discharge Once the 2.2 billion gallons of water have cycled
through the coal-fired power plant, they are released back into the lake, river, or ocean. This water is hotter
(by up to 20-25° F) than the water that receives it. This "thermal pollution" can decrease fertility and increase
heart rates in fish. Typically, power plants also add chlorine or other toxic chemicals to their cooling water to
decrease algae growth. These chemicals are also discharged back into the environment. Waste heat Much of
the heat produced from burning coal is wasted. A typical coal power plant uses only 33-35% of the
coal's heat to produce electricity. The majority of the heat is released into the atmosphere or absorbed
by the cooling water.
Mining Coal destroys the land, causes disease, deaths, and the release of hazardous
chemicals
Union of Concerned Scientists “Environmental impacts of coal power: fuel supply” 8/18/2005
<http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c02a.html>
Coal mining About 60% of U.S. coal is stripped from the earth in surface mines; the rest comes from
underground mines. Surface coal mining may dramatically alter the landscape. Coal companies
throughout Appalachia often remove entire mountain tops to expose the coal below. The wastes are
generally dumped in valleys and streams. In West Virginia, more than 300,000 acres of hardwood
forests (half the size of Rhode Island) and 1,000 miles of streams have been destroyed by this practice.
Underground mining is one of the most hazardous of occupations, killing and injuring many in
accidents, and causing chronic health problems. Coal transportation A typical coal plant requires 40
railroad cars to supply 1.4 million tons in a year. That's 14,600 railroad cars a year. Railroad
locomotives, which rely on diesel fuel, emit nearly 1 million tons of nitrogen oxide (NOx) and 52,000
tons of coarse and small particles in the United States. Coal dust blowing from coal trains contributes
particulate matter to the air. Coal storage Coal burned by power plants is typically stored onsite in
uncovered piles. Dust blown from coal piles irritates the lungs and often settles on nearby houses and yards.
Rainfall creates runoff from coal piles. This runoff contains pollutants that can contaminate land and water.
WNDI 2008 43
Nuclear Power Aff
Coal plants release different hazardous chemicals

Union of Concerned Scientists “Coal Burns” 8/15/2005
<http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/brief_coal.html>
A Case Study: The Side Effects of a Coal Plant A 500 megawatt coal plant produces 3.5 billion kilowatt-
hours per year, enough to power a city of about 140,000 people. It burns 1,430,000 tons of coal, uses 2.2
billion gallons of water and 146,000 tons of limestone. It also puts out, each year: * 10,000 tons of
sulfur dioxide. Sulfur dioxide (SOx) is the main cause of acid rain, which damages forests, lakes and
buildings. * 10,200 tons of nitrogen oxide. Nitrogen oxide (NOx) is a major cause of smog, and also a
cause of acid rain. * 3.7 million tons of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the main greenhouse
gas, and is the leading cause of global warming. There are no regulations limiting carbon dioxide
emissions in the U.S. * 500 tons of small particles. Small particulates are a health hazard, causing
lung damage. Particulates smaller than 10 microns are not regulated, but may be soon. * 220 tons of
hydrocarbons. Fossil fuels are made of hydrocarbons; when they don't burn completely, they are released
into the air. They are a cause of smog. * 720 tons of carbon monoxide. Carbon monoxide (CO) is a
poisonous gas and contributor to global warming. * 125,000 tons of ash and 193,000 tons of sludge
from the smokestack scrubber. A scrubber uses powdered limestone and water to remove pollution from the
plant's exhaust. Instead of going into the air, the pollution goes into a landfill or into products like concrete
and drywall. This ash and sludge consists of coal ash, limestone, and many pollutants, such as toxic
metals like lead and mercury. * 225 pounds of arsenic, 114 pounds of lead, 4 pounds of cadmium,
and many other toxic heavy metals. Mercury emissions from coal plants are suspected of
contaminating lakes and rivers in northern and northeast states and Canada. In Wisconsin alone, more than
200 lakes and rivers are contaminated with mercury. Health officials warn against eating fish caught in these
waters, since mercury can cause birth defects, brain damage and other ailments. Acid rain also causes
mercury poisoning by leaching mercury from rocks and making it available in a form that can be taken up by
organisms. * Trace elements of uranium. All but 16 of the 92 naturally occurring elements have been
detected in coal, mostly as trace elements below 0.1 percent (1,000 parts per million, or ppm). A study by
DOE's Oak Ridge National Lab found that radioactive emissions from coal combustion are greater
than those from nuclear power production. The 2.2 billion gallons of water it uses for cooling is raised 16
degrees F on average before being discharged into a lake or river. By warming the water year-round it
changes the habitat of that body of water.
WNDI 2008 44
Nuclear Power Aff
Coal Advantage-Transportation
Coal Transportation
Union of Concerned Scientists “Coal Burns” 8/15/2005
<http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/brief_coal.html>
Transportation of coal is typically by rail and barge; much coal now comes from the coal basins of
Wyoming and the West. Injuries from coal transportation (such as at train crossing accidents) are
estimated to cause 450 deaths and 6800 injuries per year. Transporting enough coal to supply just this
one 500 MW plant requires 14,300 train cars. That's 40 cars of coal per day.
WNDI 2008 45
Nuclear Power Aff
Coal Advantage- Kills Fish

Coal Kills Fish
Union of Concerned Scientists “Environmental impacts of coal power: fuel supply” 8/18/2005
<http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c02b.html>
A typical 500-megawatt coal-fired power plant draws about 2.2 billion gallons of water each year from
nearby water bodies, such as lakes, rivers, or oceans, to create steam for turning its turbines. This is
enough water to support a city of approximately 250,000 people. When this water is drawn into the
power plant, 21 million fish eggs, fish larvae, and juvenile fish may also come along with it -- and that's
the average for a single species in just one year. In addition, EPA estimates that up to 1.5 million adult
fish a year may become trapped against the intake structures. Many of these fish are injured or die in
the process.
WNDI 2008 46
Nuclear Power Aff
Coal Advantage-Acid Rain

Coal acid rain accidents and greenhouse emissions
Scientific America “Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste” 12/12/2007
<http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste>
Coal, meanwhile, is believed responsible for a host of more quotidian problems, such as mining
accidents, acid rain and greenhouse gas emissions. But it isn't supposed to spawn three-eyed fish like
Blinky. Over the past few decades, however, a series of studies has called these stereotypes into question.
Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than
that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, fly ash—a by-product from burning coal for
power—contains up to 100 times more radiation than nuclear waste. At issue is coal's content of
uranium and thorium, both radioactive elements. They occur in such trace amounts in natural, or "whole,"
coal that they aren't a problem. But when coal is burned into fly ash, uranium and thorium are
concentrated at up to 10 times their original levels. Fly ash uranium sometimes leaches into the soil
and water surrounding a coal plant, affecting cropland and, in turn, food. People living within a "stack
shadow"—the area within a half- to one-mile (0.8- to 1.6-kilometer) radius of a coal plant's smokestacks—
might then ingest small amounts of radiation. Fly ash is also disposed of in landfills and abandoned mines
and quarries, posing a potential risk to people living around those areas. In a 1978 paper for Science, J. P.
McBride at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and his colleagues looked at the uranium and thorium
content of fly ash from coal-fired power plants in Tennessee and Alabama. To answer the question of just
how harmful leaching could be, the scientists estimated radiation exposure around the coal plants and
compared it with exposure levels around boiling-water reactor and pressurized-water nuclear power plants.
The result: estimated radiation doses ingested by people living near the coal plants were equal to or
higher than doses for people living around the nuclear facilities. At one extreme, the scientists estimated
fly ash radiation in individuals' bones at around 18 millirems (thousandths of a rem, a unit for measuring
doses of ionizing radiation) a year. Doses for the two nuclear plants, by contrast, ranged from between
three and six millirems for the same period. And when all food was grown in the area, radiation doses
were 50 to 200 percent higher around the coal plants.
WNDI 2008 47
Nuclear Power Aff
Coal Advantage- Acid Rain

Burning Coal Causes Acid Rain
EPA “What is Acid Rain?” US Energy Environmental Protection Agency 6/8/2007
<http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/what/index.html>
"Acid rain" is a broad term referring to a mixture of wet and dry deposition (deposited material) from the
atmosphere containing higher than normal amounts of nitric and sulfuric acids. The precursors, or
chemical forerunners, of acid rain formation result from both natural sources, such as volcanoes and decaying
vegetation, and man-made sources, primarily emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx)
resulting from fossil fuel combustion. In the United States, roughly 2/3 of all SO2 and 1/4 of all NOx
come from electric power generation that relies on burning fossil fuels, like coal. Acid rain occurs when
these gases react in the atmosphere with water, oxygen, and other chemicals to form various acidic
compounds. The result is a mild solution of sulfuric acid and nitric acid. When sulfur dioxide and nitrogen
oxides are released from power plants and other sources, prevailing winds blow these compounds across state
and national borders, sometimes over hundreds of miles.
Acid rain hurts the environment and cost millions of dollars

BAQ “Acid Rain” Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality, State of Maine 2005
<http://www.maine.gov/dep/air/acidrain/>
Acid deposition changes the chemistry of the environment. It affects water bodies such as ponds and
lakes, river and streams, and bays and estuaries by increasing their acidity, in some cases to the point
where aquatic animals and plants begin to die off. The lowered pH may liberate metals bound in the
minerals of the bedrock and soils surrounding a waterbody, sometimes to a toxic effect. Acid
deposition damages vegetation as well. Scientists have observed leaf damage attributable to acid rain that
limits the plant's ability to grow and sustain itself. Damage to forests has also been well documented; acid
deposition reacts chemically with forest soils, leaching away nutrients vital to tree growth while at the same
time mobilizing toxic metals in the soil. While it is less well documented, some scientists have expressed a
concern that acid deposition may adversely affect land dwelling animals as well, through the mobilization
of metals in drinking water and through the uptake of metals by plants that are later consumed by animals. It
is likely that humans would be similarly affected. It is clear that human health is compromised in those
populations chronically exposed to airborne concentrations of sulfates and nitrates found downwind of
heavily industrialized areas. Acid deposition damages man-made structures as well; limestone,
marble, and sandstone are susceptible to damage from acid deposition, as are metals, paints, textiles
and ceramics. Repairing the damage caused by acid rain to buildings and monuments costs millions of
dollars per year.
WNDI 2008 48
Nuclear Power Aff
Coal Advantage- Uranium
Coal releases hazardous Uranium into our environment

Science News “Radioactivity from burning coal” 10/1/1994
<http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n14_v146/ai_16387382>
W. Alex Gabbard, a nuclear physicist at the Oak Ridge (Tenn.) National Laboratory, did a little calculating.
According to Environmental Protection Agency figures, an average ton of coal contains 1.3 parts per
million of uranium and 3.2 parts per million of thorium. Both naturally occurring trace metals are
radioactive. Of the uranium, roughly 0.71 percent is U-235, the fissionable variety used by nuclear
power plants. Thus in 1982, he estimates, U.S. coal-burning power plants, which collectively consumed
616 million tons of coal, released 801 tons of uranium and 1,971 tons of thorium into the environment --
virtually unnoticed. Roughly 11,371 pounds of the uranium was U-235. Moreover, global combustion of
2,800 million tons of coal that year released 8,960 tons of thorium and 3,640 tons of uranium, of which
51,700 pounds was U-235. Ironically, in 1982, 111 U.S. nuclear power plants used 540 tons of nuclear fuel
to generate electricity. Thus, "the release of nuclear components from coal combustion far exceeds the entire
U.S. consumption of nuclear fuels," Gabbard notes in the fall issue of the OAK RIDGE NATIONAL
LABORATORY REVIEW. Gabbard then calculated the energy value of the lost radioactive materials. He
found that the nuclear fuel released by burning coal has one and a half times more energy than the coal
itself.
Nuclear power saves lives will coal kills

Bernard L. Cohen, Sc.D. Professor at the University of Pittsburgh “Risks of Nuclear Power” University of Idaho
6/4/2004 < http://physics.isu.edu/radinf/np-risk.htm>
Mining uranium to fuel nuclear power plants leaves "mill tailings", the residues from chemical processing of
the ore, which lead to radon exposures to the public. However, these effects are grossly over-compensated by
the fact that mining uranium out of the ground reduces future radon exposures. By comparison, coal
burning leaves ashes that increase future radon exposures. The all-inclusive estimates of radon effects
are that one nuclear power plant operating for one year will eventually avert a few hundred deaths,
while an equivalent coal burning plant will eventually cause 30 deaths.
WNDI 2008 49
Nuclear Power Aff
Coal Advantage- Green House Gases
Coal major green house contributor

Chris Kraul, Bureau Chief “Coal Carves a Place in the Future of Global Energy” 7/20/2008
<http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/20/10483/>
By 2030, about 54% of all U.S. electric power will be coal-fired, up from the current 48%, according to
the National Mining Assn., a Washington-based trade group. Environmentalists and consumer advocates
warn of the consequences. Customers are beginning to see higher electric bills. Much more pain is on
the way, according to U.S. Department of Energy economist Michael Mellish. “Coal prices have taken
off with a vengeance and electricity prices will spike up if they stick,” Mellish said. Of longer-term
concern are the effects on climate change. Coal-fired power generation and manufacturing is the
leading source of carbon dioxide and methane emissions, which scientists agree are the leading
contributors to the “greenhouse effect” and global warming.
More than 6 billion people will perish by the end of the century
Jeff Goodell. Editor and contributor NYT mag New York Times best selling author. “The Prophet of Climate
Change: James Lovelock” Rolling Stone 11/1/2007
<http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16956300/the_prophet_of_climate_change_james_lovelock>
In Lovelock's view, the scale of the catastrophe that awaits us will soon become obvious. By 2020, droughts
and other extreme weather will be commonplace. By 2040, the Sahara will be moving into Europe, and
Berlin will be as hot as Baghdad. Atlanta will end up a kudzu jungle. Phoenix will become
uninhabitable, as will parts of Beijing (desert), Miami (rising seas) and London (floods). Food
shortages will drive millions of people north, raising political tensions. "The Chinese have nowhere to go
but up into Siberia," Lovelock says. "How will the Russians feel about that? I fear that war between Russia
and China is probably inevitable." With hardship and mass migrations will come epidemics, which are likely
to kill millions. By 2100, Lovelock believes, the Earth's population will be culled from today's 6.6 billion
to as few as 500 million, with most of the survivors living in the far latitudes -- Canada, Iceland,
Scandinavia, the Arctic Basin. By the end of the century, according to Lovelock, global warming will
cause temperate zones like North America and Europe to heat up by fourteen degrees Fahrenheit,
nearly double the likeliest predictions of the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, the United Nations-sanctioned body that includes the world's top scientists. "Our
future," Lovelock writes, "is like that of the passengers on a small pleasure boat sailing quietly above
the Niagara Falls, not knowing that the engines are about to fail." And switching to energy-efficient light
bulbs won't save us. To Lovelock, cutting greenhouse-gas pollution won't make much difference at this point,
and much of what passes for sustainable development is little more than a scam to profit off disaster.
"Green," he tells me, only half-joking, "is the color of mold and corruption." If such predictions were
coming from anyone else, you would laugh them off as the ravings of an old man projecting his own
impending death onto the world around him. But Lovelock is not so easily dismissed. As an inventor, he
created a device that helped detect the growing hole in the ozone layer and jump-start the environmental
movement in the 1970s. And as a scientist, he introduced the revolutionary theory known as Gaia -- the idea
that our entire planet is a kind of superorganism that is, in a sense, "alive." Once dismissed as New Age
quackery, Lovelock's vision of a self-regulating Earth now underlies virtually all climate science. Lynn
Margulis, a pioneering biologist at the University of Massachusetts, calls him "one of the most innovative
and mischievous scientific minds of our time." Richard Branson, the British entrepreneur, credits Lovelock
with inspiring him to pledge billions of dollars to fight global warming. "Jim is a brilliant scientist who has
been right about many things in the past," Branson says. "If he's feeling gloomy about the future, it's
important for mankind to pay attention."
WNDI 2008 50
Nuclear Power Aff
Lovelock Credintials
“Detailed biography of James Lovelock” 9/17/2006 Environmental studies for Nuclear Energy
<http://www.ecolo.org/lovelock/lovedeten.htm>
James Ephraim Lovelock was born on July 26, 1919 in Letchworth Garden City in the United Kingdom. He
graduated as a chemist from Manchester University in 1941 and in 1948 received a Ph.D. degree in
medicine from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. In 1959 he received the D.Sc.
degree in biophysics from London University. After graduating from Manchester he started employment
with the Medical Research Council at the National Institute for Medical Research in London, but five years
between 1946 and 1951 were spent at the Common CoId Research Unit at Harvard Hospital in Salisbury,
Wiltshire. In 1954 he was awarded the Rockefeller Travelling Fellowship in Medicine and chose to spend
it at Harvard University Medical School in Boston. In 1958 he visited Yale University for a similar period.
He resigned from the National Institute in London in 1961 to take up full time employment as Professor of
Chemistry at Baylor University College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, where he remained until 1964.
During his stay in Texas he collaborated with colleagues at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena,
California on Lunar and Planetary Research. Since 1964 he has conducted an independent practice in science,
although continuing honorary academic associations as a visiting professor, first at the University of Houston
and then at the University of Reading in the U.K. Since 1982 he has been associated with the Marine
Biological Association at Plymouth, first as a council member, and from 1986 to 1990 as its president. James
Lovelock is the author of approximately 200 scientific papers, distributed almost equally among topics in
Medicine, Biology, Instrument Science and Geophysiology. He has filed more than 50 patents, mostly for
detectors for use in chemical analysis. One of these, the electron capture detector, was important in the
development of environmental awareness. It revealed for the first time the ubiquitous distribution of pesticide
residues and other halogen bearing chemicals. This information enabled Rachel Carson to write her book,
Silent Spring, often said to have initiated the awareness of environmental disturbance. Later it enabled the
discovery of the presence of PCB's in the natural environment. More recently the electron capture detector
was responsible for the discovery of the global distribution of nitrous oxide and of the chlorofluorocarbons,
both of which are important in the stratospheric chemistry of ozone. Some of his inventions were adopted
by NASA in their programme of planetary exploration. He was awarded by NASA three certificates of
recognition for these.
WNDI 2008 51
Nuclear Power Aff
Coal Advantage- Mercury
Coal Burning releases Mercury

EPA “Mercury” US Environmental Protection Agency 5/30/2008 <http://www.epa.gov/mercury/about.htm>
Mercury is found in many rocks including coal. When coal is burned, mercury is released into the
environment. Coal-burning power plants are the largest human-caused source of mercury emissions to
the air in the United States, accounting for over 40 percent of all domestic human-caused mercury
emissions. EPA has estimated that about one quarter of U.S. emissions from coal-burning power plants
are deposited within the contiguous U.S. and the remainder enters the global cycle. Burning hazardous
wastes, producing chlorine, breaking mercury products, and spilling mercury, as well as the improper
treatment and disposal of products or wastes containing mercury, can also release it into the environment.
Current estimates are that less than half of all mercury deposition within the U.S. comes from U.S. sources.
Mercury causes death

Eric Perez, MD, Department of Emergency Medicine, St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center, New York, NY
“Mercury” US National Library of Medicine 12/6/2006
<http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002476.htm>
Organic mercury can cause sickness if breathed in, eaten, or placed on the skin for long periods of
time. Usually organic mercury causes problems over years or decades, not immediately. In other words,
being exposed to small amounts of organic mercury every day for years will likely cause symptoms to appear
later. Regardless, a single large exposure can also cause problems. Long-term exposure will likely cause
neurological symptoms, including: * Numbness or pain in certain parts of your skin * Uncontrollable
shake or tremor * Inability to walk well * Blindness and double vision * Memory problems * Seizures
and death (with large exposures) Medical evidence suggests that being exposed to large amounts of the
organic mercury called methylmercury while pregnant can permanently damage the baby’s developing
brain. Most doctors will recommend eating less fish, especially swordfish, while pregnant. These
recommendations are made to be extremely cautious. Small exposures are unlikely to cause any problems.
Women should talk to their doctor about what should and should not be eaten while pregnant.
WNDI 2008 52
Nuclear Power Aff
Coal Mining- Biodiversity
Coal mining devastatingly destroys biodiversity

Grasslands Programe “Coal Mining” 7/23/2008 South African National Biodiversity Institute in Pretoria
<http://www.grasslands.org.za/page.php?p_id=32>
Coal is extracted either by underground mining or open-cast mining, with 40% of coal in South Africa
being extracted by open-cast methods. Open-cast coal mining has a devastating impact on biodiversity
because it has the effect of removing biodiversity values from the landscape permanently. Coal mining
expansion is happening at a rapid rate across the highveld grasslands, resulting in increasing pressure on
grasslands biodiversity, including a negative impact of on wetlands as mining resources often underlie
wetlands. There are also off-site impacts on wetlands affected by water abstraction.
Without Biodiversity humans, along with the rest of the planet will go extinct
Brian Klinkenberg. Department of Geography, University of British Columbia “What is biodiversity?” British
Columbia University 4/2/2008 <http://www.geog.ubc.ca/biodiversity/Whatisbiodiversity.html>
The biodiversity of our planet is important to human survival, but it is also inherently valuable, with or
without humans. Wild species make our ecosystems tick, they help keep our drinking water fresh, some
create ecosystems (think of the Canadian Beaver, master architect). Ecosystems and plants and animals
are so linked that if we remove some of them, we might inadvertently we remove all of them through a
cascading ecological effect. As responsible stewards of our planet, we must ensure that the complex
array of biological diversity is maintained and not destroyed by expanding human populations. We
must ensure that ecosystems remain whole and healthy. If we don't, humans will feel the effects. It is the
wild things that offer hope for humanity. The wild things are far more important than us.
WNDI 2008 53
Nuclear Power Aff
Coal Advantage- Will Run Out

Coal will run out 17 years at the latest
Dr. Werner Zittel, Ludwig Bölkow Systemtechnik GmbH. “Peak coal by 2025 say researchers” 3/28/2007
Energy Watch Group < http://www.energybulletin.net/node/28287>
Fastest reserve depletion in China, USA beyond peak production The fastest reserves depletion worldwide
is taking place in China with 1.9 percent of reserves produced annually. The USA, being the second largest
producer, have already passed peak production of high quality coal in 1990 in the Appalachian and the
Illinois basin. Production of subbituminous coal in Wyoming more than compensated for this decline in terms
of volume and – according to its stated reserves – this trend can continue for another 10 to 15 years.
However, due to the lower energy content of subbituminous coal, US coal production in terms of energy
has already peaked 5 years ago – it is unclear whether this trend can be reversed. ... Global coal
production to peak around 2025 at 30 percent above present production in the best case Based on the
assessment that reserve data may be taken as upper limit for practically relevant coal quantities to be
produced in the future, production profiles are developed. The following figure provides a summary of
past and future world coal production in energy terms based on a detailed country-by-country analysis. This
analysis reveals that global coal production may still increase over the next 10 to 15 years by about 30
percent, mainly driven by Australia, China, the Former Soviet Union countries (Russia, Ukraine,
Kazakhstan) and South Africa. Production will then reach a plateau and will eventually decline thereafter.
The possible production growth until about 2020 according to this analysis is in line with the two demand
scenarios of the International Energy Agency (IEA) in the 2006 edition of the World Energy Outlook.
However, the projected development beyond 2020 is only compatible with the IEA alternative policy
scenario in which coal production is constrained by climate policy measures while the IEA reference scenario
assumes further increasing coal consumption (and production) until at least 2030. According to our analysis,
this will not be possible due to limited reserves. Again, it needs to be emphasized that this projection
represents an upper limit of future coal production according to the authors' best estimate. Climate
policy or other restrictions have not been taken into account. Conclusion and recommendation Global
coal reserve data are of poor quality, but seem to be biased towards the high side. Production profile
projections suggest the global peak of coal production to occur around 2025 at 30 percent above current
production in the best case. There should be a wide discussion on this subject leading to better data in order
to provide a reliable and transparent basis for long term decisions regarding the future structure of our energy
system. Also the repercussions for the climate models on global warming are an important issue.
WNDI 2008 54
Nuclear Power Aff
Yes peak coal – US – 5 years ago

Coal had already peaked in the United States; reserves are dwindling around the world
Richard Heinberg “Burning the Furniture” Global Public Media 3/22/2007 <
http://globalpublicmedia.com/richard_heinbergs_museletter_179_burning_the_furniture>
The United States is the world’s second-largest producer, surpassing the two next important producer states (India and
Australia) by nearly a factor of three. Its reserves are so large that America has sometimes been called “the Saudi Arabia of coal.” The
U.S. has already passed its peak of production for high-quality coal (from the Appalachian mountains and the Illinois basin) and has seen
production of bituminous coal decline since 1990. However, growing extraction of sub-bituminous coal in Wyoming has more than
compensated for this. Taking reserves into account, the authors of the report conclude that growth in total volumes
can continue for 10 to 15 years. However, in terms of energy content U.S. coal production peaked in 1998 at 598
million tons of oil equivalents (Mtoe); by 2005 this had fallen to 576 Mtoe. This forecast for a near-term peak in U.S. coal
extraction flies in the face of frequently repeated statements that the nation has 200 years’ worth of coal reserves at current levels of
consumption. The report notes: “all of these reserves will probably not be converted into production volumes,
as most of them are of low quality with high sulfur content or other restrictions.” It also points out that “the
productivity of mines in terms of produced tons per miner steadily increased until 2000, but declines
since then.” The report’s key findings regarding future U.S. coal production are summed up in the following paragraph: Three
federal states (Montana, Illinois, Wyoming) own more than 70% of US coal reserves. Over the last 20 years two of
these three states (Montana and Illinois) have been producing at remarkably low levels in relation to their
reported reserves. Moreover, the production in Montana has remained constant for the last 10 years and the production in Illinois
has steadily declined by 50% since 1986. This casts severe doubts on the reliability of their reported reserves. Even if these
reported recoverable reserves do exist, some other reasons prevented their extraction and it is therefore very uncertain whether these
reserves will ever be converted into produced volumes. Considering the insights of the regional analysis it is very likely that bituminous
coal production in the US already has peaked, and that total coal production will peak between 2020 and
2030. The report is somewhat more pessimistic than a previous independent analysis of future U.S. coal production by Gregson Vaux
(“The Peak in U.S. Coal Production”), which gave America 30 to 50 years till peak. The following figure provides an overview of world
coal production, based on detailed country-by-country analysis. The International Energy Agency’s “World Energy Outlook 2006”
(WEO 2006) discusses two future scenarios for global coal production: a “reference scenario” that assumes unconstrained coal
consumption, and an “alternative policy scenario” in which consumption is capped through government efforts to reduce climate
impacts. Both scenarios are compatible with the supply forecast in the EWG report until about 2020. Thereafter, only a rate of demand
corresponding with the “alternative policy scenario” can be met. This clearly has implications for climate policy, which I will explore in
a later section of this article. The report focuses on mined coal and does not discuss underground coal gasification. The U.S. DOE has
estimated that up to 1.8 trillion tons of otherwise unminable coal might be turned into useful energy by underground gasification,
roughly tripling the amount of energy that could be recovered from the mining of U.S. coal resources. However, as report author Werner
Zittel noted in an email exchange on this point, underground coal gasification is still in the research stage and its future as a source of
global energy is uncertain. Major problems include: * the variable gas composition and its low heating value * environmental
issues due to sudden soil sinks, groundwater contamination and numerous bore holes * changing coal composition and its seem
thickness * inclination of the coal layer * water levels * density of covering layers * economic aspects At the same time, it is
possible that the report understates some of the problems associated with mined coal. A coal-mining engineer in South Africa once
described to me in conversation how cost-driven mining techniques often take out only the best coal and leave
behind poorer-quality resources, and how this is done in such a way that once an underground mine is
shut down, it is likely never to be re-opened. This situation is probably not unique to South Africa: E. N. Cameron’s At the
Crossroads: The Mineral Problems of the United States (1986) discusses how “workings deteriorate, and cave-ins may occur” in
abandoned mines, frequently leading to a situation where “Costs of rehabilitation may become prohibitive. Mining of
the poorer seams may never be resumed. The coal involved in such mines becomes a lost resource.”
Implications for Global Energy Supply According to the Association for the Study of Peak Oil (ASPO) 2006 Base Case
Scenario (published in the February 2007 ASPO Newsletter), the global production of conventional oil (crude plus
condensate) peaked in 2006, while all liquids (including non-conventional oil) and natural gas combined will peak
approximately in 2010. Since oil and gas together provide the bulk of world energy, their combined
<CONTINUED>1/2
WNDI 2008 55
Nuclear Power Aff

<CONTINUED>2/2
peak will probably determine the peak in total world energy production and consumption. If the EWG
report is right that the global coal peak will occur around a decade after the petroleum/gas peak, this probably
implies a 10-year interval, starting around 2010, of relatively slow fall-off in total energy from fossil fuels,
followed by a gradually accelerating decline. Regional oil and gas supply gaps will likely first be closed
using domestic alternatives, and those nations that have an available coal resource base will likely seek
to produce liquid fuels from coal. This will reduce the already meager amount of coal available to the
export market. Peak oil is sometimes spoken of (e.g., by the team that produced the 2005 Hirsch report,
“Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation and Risk Management”) as a liquid fuels crisis that
will primarily impact the transport sector. Taking into account regional gas constraints and a likely near-term
peak in global coal extraction, it is perhaps more appropriate to speak instead a broad-spectrum energy crisis
with implications for electricity generation, space heating, and agriculture as well. Oil, natural gas, and
coal together supply over 87 percent of total world energy, which stands at about 400 quadrillion Btus, or
“quads,” per year. Therefore, compensating for a realistically possible 2.5 percent annual decline in all
fossil fuels averaged over the next 20 years would require developing almost 10 quads of energy
production capacity from new sources each year (this assumes no growth in energy demand). Ten quads
represent roughly 10 percent of total current U.S. energy production. By way of comparison, today’s total
installed world wind and solar generating capacity—the result of many years of investment and work—
stands at less than 1 quad.
US Coal has already peaked

Richard Heinberg “Peak coal: sooner than you think” 5/21/2007 Energy Bulletin
<http://www.energybulletin.net/node/29919>
The United States is the world's second-largest producer, surpassing the two next important producer
states (India and Australia) by nearly a factor of three. Its reserves are so large that America has been called
"the Saudi Arabia of coal". The US has already passed its peak of production for high-quality coal (from
the Appalachian Mountains and the Illinois basin) and has seen production of bituminous coal decline since
1990. However, growing extraction of sub-bituminous coal in Wyoming has more than compensated for this.
Taking reserves into account, the EWG concludes that growth in total volumes can continue for 10 to 15
years. However, in terms of energy content US coal production peaked in 1998 at 598 million tons of oil
equivalents (Mtoe); by 2005 this had fallen to 576 Mtoe.
WNDI 2008 56
Nuclear Power Aff

Overestimates of coal reserves, while US has already passed peak of high quality coal
Richard Heinberg “Peak coal: sooner than you think” 5/21/2007
<http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5869&page=2>
However, future scenarios for global coal consumption are cast into doubt by two recent European studies on
world coal supplies. The first, Coal: Resources and Future Production (PDF 630KB), published on April 5 by
the Energy Watch Group, which reports to the German Parliament, found that global coal production could
peak in as few as 15 years. This astonishing conclusion was based on a careful analysis of recent
reserves revisions for several nations. The report’s authors (Werner Zittel and Jörg Schindler) note that,
with regard to global coal reserves, “the data quality is very unreliable”, especially for China, South Asia, and
the Former Soviet Union countries. Some nations (such as Vietnam) have not updated their proved
reserves for decades, in some instances not since the 1960s. China’s last update was in 1992; since then,
20 per cent of its reserves have been consumed, though this is not revealed in official figures. However,
since 1986 all nations with significant coal resources (except India and Australia) that have made the
effort to update their reserves estimates have reported substantial downward revisions. Some countries -
including Botswana, Germany, and the UK - have downgraded their reserves by more than 90 per cent.
Poland’s reserves are now 50 per cent smaller than was the case 20 years ago. These downgrades cannot be
explained by volumes produced during this period. The best explanation, say the EWG report’s authors, is
that nations now have better data from more thorough surveys. If that is the case, then future downward
revisions are likely from countries that still rely on decades-old reserves estimates. Altogether, the world’s
reserves of coal have dwindled from 10 trillion tons of hard coal equivalent to 4.2 trillion tons in 2005 -
a 60 per cent downward revision in 25 years. China (the world’s primary consumer) and the US (the
nation with the largest reserves) are keys to the future of coal. China reports 55 years of coal reserves at
current consumption rates. Subtracting quantities consumed since 1992, the last year reserves figures were
updated, this declines to 40 to 45 years. However, the calculation assumes constant rates of usage, which is
unrealistic since consumption is increasing rapidly. Already China has shifted from being a minor coal
exporter to being a net coal importer. Moreover, we must factor in the peaking phenomenon common to the
extraction of all non-renewable resources (the peak of production typically occurs long before the resource is
exhausted). The EWG report’s authors, taking these factors into account, state: “it is likely that China will
experience peak production within the next 5-15 years, followed by a steep decline.” Only if China’s
reported coal reserves are in reality much larger than reported will Chinese coal production rates not peak
“very soon” and fall rapidly. The United States is the world’s second-largest producer, surpassing the two
next important producer states (India and Australia) by nearly a factor of three. Its reserves are so large that
America has been called “the Saudi Arabia of coal”. The US has already passed its peak of production for
high-quality coal (from the Appalachian Mountains and the Illinois basin) and has seen production of
bituminous coal decline since 1990. However, growing extraction of sub-bituminous coal in Wyoming has
more than compensated for this.
WNDI 2008 57
Nuclear Power Aff
Yes peak coal – 15 years

Coal to peak in 15 years
However, future scenarios for global coal consumption are cast into doubt by two recent European studies
on world coal supplies. The first, Coal: Resources and Future Production (PDF 630KB), published on April 5
by the Energy Watch Group, which reports to the German Parliament, found that global coal production could
peak in as few as 15 years. This astonishing conclusion was based on a careful analysis of recent reserves
revisions for several nations.
WNDI 2008 58
Nuclear Power Aff
Coal bad – China

Coal in China is destroying the environment and rapidly using reserves
Richard Heinberg “Coal in China” Global Public Media 7/27/2008
<http://globalpublicmedia.com/museletter_coal_in_china>
China is the world's foremost coal producer and consumer, surpassing the United States by a factor of two on both
scores and accounting for 40 percent of total world production. Moreover, its coal consumption has been rising rapidly, at
a rate of up to ten percent per year (which translates to a doubling of demand every 7 years). While China is a significant
producer of oil and natural gas, coal dominates the nation's fossil-fuel reserve base. About 70 percent of China's total
energy is derived from coal, and about 80 percent of its electricity. The country has recently become the world's foremost
greenhouse gas emitter due to its growing, coal-fed energy appetite. This nation's coal-mining history is probably
the world's longest, dating back up to two millennia—though modern mining methods were not introduced until the late 19th Century by
European, and later by Japanese companies. Production achieved one million tons per year in 1903, growing at an average annual rate of
over ten percent. Growth slowed during the civil wars of the 1920s, but resumed strongly in the mid-1930s. After the establishment of
the People's Republic in 1949, coal production again slumped, then quickly increased to over 400 million tons per year by 1960, only to
fall again during the turbulent years of the Cultural Revolution. Production accelerated from the 1970s on, achieving one billion tons per
year in 1989. In 1996, China began addressing problems of mine safety and low productivity by closing its smallest and least efficient
mines. This led to a temporary decline in production lasting until 2000; since then, production has grown with astonishing rapidity to the
present annual output of roughly 2.5 billion metric tons (tonnes) or 2.7 billion US short tons. China's coal consumption in
2000 was 30 times its volume a half-century earlier, at the time of the establishment of the People's
Republic. And just since 2000, consumption has more than doubled. China currently has roughly
25,000 coalmines, with 3.4 million registered employees. Many of these mines are small, private, local—and even illegal—
operations that can respond quickly to the market; but they are less efficient than larger, centralized mines and tend to have more
environmental and safety problems. The productivity of China's coal mining is low: in 1999, 289 tons of coal
were produced per miner averaged across all the nation's mines, versus almost 12,000 tons per miner
in the US. This productivity rate resulted from still-low levels of mechanization within the mining industry. However, the strong trend
during the past decade has been toward greater mechanization. Thin overburden allows surface mining in some areas, but only four to
seven percent of China's reserves are suitable for surface mining, and of these most consist of lignite. Today the average mining depth in
China is 400 meters, a figure that is slowly increasing, and 95 percent of mines are shaft mines (compared to 48 percent in the US).
Uncontrolled underground coal fires, some of which will burn for decades, have become an enormous
environmental problem in China, consuming an estimated 200 million tons of coal annually—an
amount equal to about 10 percent of the nation's coal production. These ultra-hot fires can occur naturally, but
most are caused by sparks from cutting and welding, electrical work, explosives, or cigarette smoking. Across the northern region of
Xinjiang, fires at small illegal mines have resulted from miners using abandoned mines for shelter, and burning coal within the shafts for
heat. China's underground coal fires make an enormous, hidden contribution to global warming,
annually releasing 360 million tons of carbon dioxide—as much as all the cars and light trucks in the United States.
The pace of China's headlong dash toward increased coal consumption is legendary: in recent years an average of one new coal-fed
power plant has fired up every week. The resulting annual capacity addition is comparable to the size of Britain's entire power grid. The
price being paid in environmental quality and human health for this coal bonanza is likewise well known—to citizens and visitors alike:
coal power plants emit deadly clouds of soot, sulfur dioxide, and other toxic pollutants, as well as millions of tons of carbon dioxide. As
a consequence, areas in southern China such as Sichuan, Guangxi, Hunan, Jiangxi, and Guangdong have increasing problems with acid
rain; many of China's cities are shrouded in a continual pall of smoke reminiscent of London or Pittsburgh in 1900; and respiratory
ailments now account for 26 percent of all deaths. China's coal is used not only for electricity generation, but also for the production of
iron, steel, and building materials (primarily cement), and as fertilizer feedstock. These main drivers of increased demand are themselves
powered by heavy industrial growth, infrastructure development, urbanization (roughly 300 million additional people will live in
Chinese cities by 2020), and rising per-capita GDP. All of these trends in turn emerge from China's recent history. At the end of the
Communist revolution in 1949, the country was impoverished and war-ravaged; the overwhelming majority of its people consisted of
rural peasants. Communist Party chairman Mao Zedong's stated goal was to bring prosperity to his populous, resource-rich nation. A
period of economic growth and infrastructure development ensued, lasting until the mid-1960s. At this point, Mao appears to have had
second thoughts: concerned that further industrialization would create or deepen class divisions, he unleashed the Cultural Revolution,
lasting from 1966 to the mid-1970s, during which industrial and agricultural output fell. As Mao's health declined, a vicious power
struggle ensued, from which emerged the reforms of Deng Xiaoping. Economic growth became a higher priority than ever before, and it
followed in spectacular fashion from widespread privatization and the application of market principles. "To get rich is glorious,"
Communist officials now proclaimed. During the 1950s, '60s, and '70s, the populace worked hard, sacrificed, and endured grinding
poverty for the good of the nation. Now a small segment of that populace—mostly in the coastal cities—is enjoying a middle-class
existence, and in some cases spectacular riches. This wealth disparity is bearable only as long as the middle class continues to expand in
numbers, offering the promise of economic opportunity to hundreds of millions of poor peasants in the interior of the country. In effect,
rapid economic expansion and increasing prosperity (for a small, influential portion of the population) are being used to divert domestic
attention from frustrated democratic political aspirations and regional rivalries. But China's central government has unleashed a
firestorm of entrepreneurial, profit-driven economic activity, which it cannot effectively contain. China's central government and its legal
institutions are relatively weak; meanwhile the uncontrollably dynamic economy is export-dependent and ill-suited to meeting domestic
needs. In short, China has encouraged rapid export-led economic growth as a way of putting off dealing with its internal
CONTINEUD 1/2
WNDI 2008 59
Nuclear Power Aff
Coal bad – China

CONTINUED 2/2
political and social problems. Economic growth requires energy, and China's energy comes overwhelmingly
from coal. The nation's short-term survival strategy thus centers on producing enormous quantities of coal
today, and far more in the future. However, there are signs that China's domestic coal production growth
may not be able to keep up with rising demand for much longer. As in the US, coal transport bottlenecks
raise production costs and inhibit growth. Most coal transport is by rail, which has grown faster than road and
water transport. But only half of China's coal production is from rail-connected mines. Lack of rail
capacity is leading to increased demand for diesel fuel for coal trucks, and thus to higher diesel prices
(and increasingly frequent shortages), and these in turn result in more coal delivery problems. The
lack of diesel fuel for coal transport could potentially be solved by turning coal into a liquid fuel (a process
discussed in more detail in Chapter 6). China's largest coal firm, the Shenhua Group, recently opened the
country's first coal-to-liquids (CTL) plant, and it plans to start seven more by 2020. Other CTL plants are also
in the works—including several in Northern China that Shenhua will construct with partners Shell and Sasol,
slated to open in 2012; and one being planned by the Yankuang coal group, the second-largest coal producer
in China, near Erdos. If only a few of these proposed CTL plants are constructed, China will lead the world
in production of synthetic liquid fuels from coal. But even if all of them come on line, this will offset only a
small portion of China's oil imports (the current goal is to produce 286,000 barrels per day by 2020, while the
nation currently imports over three million barrels of petroleum per day, with that amount growing rapidly).
In any case, CTL will entail substantial new coal demand as well as severe environmental consequences.
According to China's Coal Research Institute, each barrel of synthetic oil produced from coal will consume at
least 360 gallons of fresh water. (For comparison: 360 gallons equals roughly 8.5 barrels; thus at this ratio of
CTL to water, 286,000 barrels per day of CTL would require approximately 2.5 million bpd of water.) And
most areas of China are already experiencing water scarcity. The irony inherent in China's grand experiment
with CTL is that in order to solve coal supply problems stemming from diesel shortages, the country must
produce even more coal. Aside from transport bottlenecks, supply problems are also resulting from
crackdowns on mines that are unsafe, polluting, or wasteful of energy. China is producing its best coal
first. The country has yet to exploit its reserves of lignite, which has high moisture and ash content and
entails much higher CO2 emissions. A new technology (Integrated Drying Gasification Combined Cycle, or
IDGCC) developed in Australia, and now being studied by the Chinese government, is capable of burning
this coal efficiently and reducing greenhouse gas emissions; but if lignite grows as a share of total coal
production, this will exacerbate transport problems, because much more material will have to be mined and
moved in order to deliver the same amount of energy. All of these difficulties with producing and
delivering sufficient coal are leading to increased imports. China has been an international coal supplier
since the early 20th century, when nearly all its exports went to Japan. In 2001, China's coal exports
amounted to 90 million tons—a quantity equal to the total production of Indonesia. But Chinese coal imports
doubled between 2005 and 2007, making the nation a net importer of the resource. This trend toward
increasing coal imports, which is driving up international coal prices and impacting the economies of other
coal importers such as India and Japan, seems almost certain to accelerate. China's electric power generation
is becoming more efficient, but even an extensive rollout of the highest-efficiency plants could only dent
growth in coal consumption before 2020. Meanwhile, these new power plants will impose greater up-front
costs. In sum, continually increasing coal consumption is central to China's economic existence; however
there are signs that the country is already experiencing difficulty in maintaining its furious growth
pace in producing the resource. The amount of coal available in the future will crucially determine the
direction of the nation's economy and likely its internal social and political stability as well.
WNDI 2008 60
Nuclear Power Aff
Peak coal bad – cheap coal/mining

Coal Peak reached in the United States resulting in the increase expense in mining coal and
relaying on cheaper coal
Richard Heinberg “Coal in the United States” 5/28/2008 Global Public Media <
http://globalpublicmedia.com/museletter_194_coal_in_the_united_states>
Because the US has the world’s largest coal reserves, it has sometimes been called "the Saudi Arabia of
coal." It is the world’s second-largest coal producer, after China, but surpasses both the number three and four
producer nations (India and Australia) by nearly a factor of three. Wood was this nation’s primary fuel until the mid-1880s, when
deforestation necessitated greater reliance on abundant coal resources. Coal then remained America’s main energy source until the
1930s, when it was overtaken by oil. Today coal fuels about 50 percent of US electricity production and
provides about a quarter of the country’s total energy. The US currently produces over a billion tons
of coal per year, with quantities increasing annually. This is well over double the amount produced in 1960. However,
due to a decline in the average amount of energy contained in each ton of coal produced (i.e., declining
resource quality), the total amount of energy flowing into the US economy from coal is now falling, having
peaked in 1998. This decline in energy content per unit of weight (also known as "heating value") amounts
to more than 30 percent since 1955. It can partly be explained by the depletion of anthracite reserves and the nation’s
increasing reliance on sub-bituminous coal and even lignite, a trend that began in the 1970s. But resource quality is declining
even within each coal class. While there are coal resources in many states, the main concentrations are in Appalachia, Illinois,
Wyoming, and Montana (see map below). The 53 largest coalmines in the US, located in just a few states, account for almost 60 percent
of total production. Three states (Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and West Virginia) produce 52 percent of the higher-quality
coal in the US. All three of these states seem to be in decline or plateau. Since the Northeast was the area of the
nation earliest settled and was long a primary center for industrial manufacture, it is not surprising that the coal of this region was
exploited preferentially. Today, Pennsylvania’s anthracite is almost gone. Mining companies there are now exploiting seams as thin as 28
inches. West Virginia, the second largest coal-producing state (after Wyoming), where much coal is surface mined in an environmentally
ruinous practice known as mountaintop removal, is nearing its maximum production rate and will see declines commence within the
next few years, according to a recent USGS report. (www.byronwine.com/files/coal.pdf) The interior region—consisting of
Illinois, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Western Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas—is the smallest coal
producer of the three main producing regions. The Illinois basin boasts large reserves of bituminous coal, but
production has fallen there since the mid-1990s. Its coal generally has a high sulfur content (3 to 7 percent),
which runs afoul of US environmental laws, especially the Clean Air Act of 1990. Prior to this legislation, power plants burning high-
sulfur coal released emissions resulting in acid rain that decimated forests throughout much of the nation. The lignite steam coal of
Louisiana is an exception within the region: its sulfur content is low and so production has risen substantially in recent years. After 2018,
sulfur scrubbers will be mandatory for coal-fired power plants in the US, perhaps facilitating a move to increase production of coal from
the Illinois Basin. Wyoming has some bituminous coal, but most of its reserves consist of sub-bituminous and lignite. Production from
the state (primarily from the Powder River Basin) has increased sharply since 1970, because its coal is abundant, cheaply surface-mined,
and low in sulfur. Wyoming is currently responsible for 80 percent of coal production west of the Mississippi. Montana also has
large deposits of lower-quality coal (sub-bituminous and lignite), but these have not been tapped. The current state governor,
Brian Schweitzer, is pushing for development of these resources using gasification and carbon sequestration technologies, but there are
reasons to doubt whether this will occur soon or on a meaningful scale. Montana’s coal contains salts that will almost
inevitably find their way into the environment if widespread surface mining occurs, contaminating
rivers and creating problems for cattle ranching—the state’s economic engine and a locus of
considerable political clout. For the nation as a whole, future supply hinges on the question of how long rising
production of lower-quality coal from Wyoming—supplemented in the future perhaps by coal from Montana and the Illinois
Basin—can continue to compensate for declining amounts of high-quality coal from the East. Clearly, the US has the potential
to produce enormous quantities of coal. But the gradual depletion of coal with higher heating value is
already necessitating the mining of larger quantities of lower-quality coal to yield an equivalent
amount of energy, and as coal is sourced more from Montana and the Illinois this will require the
building of more rail transport infrastructure and the overcoming of environmental problems and
regulatory hurdles. Over sixty percent of coal mined in the US is dug from the surface. This is a higher
percentage than in most nations, and it is largely due to the contribution of Wyoming. In the eastern states, most coal still comes from
deep mines, which are moving toward the recovery of ever-thinner seams. Highwall mining systems and new technologies for longwall
mining may lead, ultimately, to remote-control mining involving few or no personnel working underground. These new and more
efficient technologies will enable some coal to be mined that would otherwise be left behind, but they are unlikely to be applied
throughout the entire industry due to high up-front investment costs. In surface mining, the largest extraction cost is
often incurred in removing overburden (soil and rock). Over the years, the coal industry has introduced ever-
larger earth-moving machines for this purpose. However, truck size has probably reached a practical maximum, as the
biggest vehicles cannot be maneuvered on roads. However coal is mined, the industry must always
CONTINUED 1/2
WNDI 2008 61
Nuclear Power Aff
Peak coal bad – cheap coal/mining

CONTINUED 2/2
confront the bottom line: the cost of getting coal out of the ground cannot exceed the market price for produced coal. Thus the current
price determines whether marginal coals will be mined profitably, or simply left in the ground. On the other hand, however, as the
costs of bringing coal to market rise, this can cause the price of coal to increase—unless and until higher prices
suppress demand. Given that demand for electricity continues to expand, and that cheap alternatives to coal for power
generation do not exist in sufficient quantity in the short run, there seems to be no near-term cap to
coal prices. As a result, marginal coalfields are now more likely to be mined. During the two-year period from
January 2006 to January 2008, prices rose from about $100 a ton to $250 a ton for high-quality metallurgical grades of US coal. Central
Appalachian steam coal is currently selling for about $90 a ton, up from $40 two years ago. During this time production costs have risen
as well, though not at the same pace. The cost of producing coal is related to the price of oil. Consider the case of Massey Energy
Company, the nation’s fourth-largest coal company, which annually produces 40 million tons of coal using about 40 million gallons of
diesel fuel—about a gallon per ton (the company also uses lubricants, rubber products, and explosives, all made from petroleum or
natural gas). If the price of diesel goes up one dollar, this translates directly to $40 million in increased costs; indirectly related costs also
climb. These costs and prices need to be seen in proportion: while coal generates half of America’s electricity, in effect providing much
of the essential basis for all economic activity within the country, US coal industry revenues are only about $25 billion—one-tenth those
of WalMart. During some recent years, the US was a net coal importer, since coal brought by ship from South America was often
cheaper to supply to coastal cities than US coal moved there by rail. This was partly a result of rail transport bottlenecks that are now
being addressed with the laying of more rails and the construction of more coal cars. Now, however, with coal prices high and imports
growing in China and India, the US has begun exporting larger quantities. Mines are employing more workers and production is
booming
WNDI 2008 62
Nuclear Power Aff
Yes peak coal – rapid use

Rapid use of coal is depleting reserves
However, since 1986 all nations with significant coal resources (except India and Australia) that have made
the effort to update their reserves estimates have reported substantial downward revisions. Some countries -
including Botswana, Germany, and the UK - have downgraded their reserves by more than 90 per
cent. Poland's reserves are now 50 per cent smaller than was the case 20 years ago. These downgrades
cannot be explained by volumes produced during this period. The best explanation, say the EWG report's
authors, is that nations now have better data from more thorough surveys. If that is the case, then future
downward revisions are likely from countries that still rely on decades-old reserves estimates. Altogether, the
world's reserves of coal have dwindled from 10 trillion tons of hard coal equivalent to 4.2 trillion tons
in 2005 - a 60 per cent downward revision in 25 years. China (the world's primary consumer) and the US
(the nation with the largest reserves) are keys to the future of coal. China reports 55 years of coal reserves
at current consumption rates. Subtracting quantities consumed since 1992, the last year reserves figures were
updated, this declines to 40 to 45 years. However, the calculation assumes constant rates of usage, which is
unrealistic since consumption is increasing rapidly. Already China has shifted from being a minor coal
exporter to being a net coal importer. Moreover, we must factor in the peaking phenomenon common to
the extraction of all non-renewable resources (the peak of production typically occurs long before the
resource is exhausted). The EWG report's authors, taking these factors into account, state: "it is likely that
China will experience peak production within the next 5-15 years, followed by a steep decline." Only if
China's reported coal reserves are in reality much larger than reported will Chinese coal production rates not
peak "very soon" and fall rapidly.
WNDI 2008 63
Nuclear Power Aff
Coal bad – econ

Reliance on coal exacerbates the nation’s energy dilemma in the long run, as well as
contributing to an impending global climate catastrophe
Richard Heinberg “Coal in the United States” 5/28/2008 Global Public Media
<http://globalpublicmedia.com/museletter_194_coal_in_the_united_states
With oil and natural gas prices rising at alarming rates, the return of the US to a greater reliance on
coal might seem inevitable. The nation is currently paying over $620 billion per year for petroleum imports,
and this ongoing transfer of wealth abroad cannot help but have a substantial negative impact on the domestic
economy. There are three ways to moderate that impact: reduce consumption of liquid fuels through
conservation; produce more fuels domestically; or electrify transport, which will require more electricity.
Coal could help with either of the latter two strategies. Given that the nation possesses so much coal, and
that energy from coal is still relatively cheap, it would seem inevitable that strong arguments will be
made for a dramatic increase in coal production to help solve the nation’s energy problems. Yet if most
of the recent analyses cited here are correct, this strategy has a short shelf life. Within the planning horizon
for any coal plant proposed today lie much higher coal prices and perhaps even resource scarcity. The
sheer amounts of coal that will be needed in order to offset any significant proportion of oil (and
perhaps also natural gas) consumption, and to meet the projected increased demand for electricity, are
mind-boggling. Coal is a lower-quality fossil fuel in the best case, and America is being forced to use
ever lower-quality coal. Just to offset the declining heating value of US coal while meeting EIA forecasts
for electricity demand growth by 2030, the nation will then have to mine roughly 80 percent more coal
then than it is doing currently. If carbon sequestration and other new technologies for consuming coal
are implemented, they will increase the amount of coal required in order to produce the same amount
of energy for society’s use, since the energy penalty for capture and sequestration is estimated at up to 40
percent. A broad-scale effort to produce synthetic liquid fuels from coal (CTL) will also dramatically increase
coal demand. If the current trend to expand coal exports continues, this would stimulate demand even further.
Altogether, there is a realistic potential for more than a doubling, perhaps even a tripling, of US coal
demand and production by 2030—which would hasten exhaustion of the resource from many current
mining regions and draw the inevitable production peak closer in time. Assuming this higher demand
scenario (from CTL, increased exports, and growing electricity consumption), by 2030 the nation’s
dependence on coal will be much greater than is currently the case, and coal’s proportional
contribution to the total US energy supply will have grown substantially. But at the same time, prices
for coal are likely to have increased precipitously because of transport bottlenecks and higher
transport costs (due to soaring diesel prices), falling production trends in many current producing
regions, and the lack of suitable new coalfields. The interactions of high and rising coal prices with
efforts to maximize output are hard to predict. As limits to domestic coal production appear, exports
could diminish and there could instead be efforts to import more coal, probably from South America. But
in that case the US economy would suffer increasingly from economic dependencies and geopolitical
vulnerabilities that already hobble the nation as a result of its oil imports. It may be tempting to think of
coal as a transitional energy source for the next few decades, while a longer-term energy strategy emerges.
But in that case, an important question arises: Will there be sufficient investment capital and technical
resources in three or four decades to fund the transition to the next energy source, whatever it may be? By
that time (assuming EIA projections are reasonably accurate), demand for energy will be higher. The price of
oil, gas, and coal will be higher—perhaps much higher—and so the nation will be spending
proportionally much more of its GDP on energy than it does now. Meanwhile, the energy cost of building
new infrastructure of any kind will be higher. Therefore it is likely that insufficient investment capital will be
available for the large number of new energy projects required. The transition if deferred will thus be more
expensive and difficult than it would be now. Indeed, the longer a transition to an ultimate (and sustainable)
energy regime is put off, the harder that transition becomes. Coal currently looks like a solution to many of
America’s fast-growing energy problems. However, this is a solution that, if applied on a broad scale, seems
certain only to exacerbate the nation’s energy dilemma in the long run, as well as contributing to an
impending global climate catastrophe.
WNDI 2008 64
Nuclear Power Aff
Coal Bad- Must change ways

Society must move away from coal in order to prevent the collapse of the economy and
environment
The findings of the 2005 USDoE-funded Hirsch report (PDF 1.17MB) (Peak of World Oil Production:
Impacts, Mitigation and Risk Management) regarding society's vulnerability to peak oil apply also to
peak coal: time will be needed in order for society to adapt proactively to a resource-constrained
environment. A failure to begin now to reduce reliance on coal will mean much greater economic
hardship when the peak arrives. The new information about coal tells us that even if the economic price
for carbon reduction is high, we have no choice but to proceed. There is no "business-as-usual" option,
even ignoring environmental impacts, given the resource constraints. Nations that are currently
dependent on coal - China and the US especially - would be wise to begin reducing consumption now, not
only in the interests of climate protection, but also to reduce societal vulnerability arising from
dependence on a resource that will soon become more scarce and expensive. The reports' findings are
not uniformly encouraging for climate matters, though. The IFE authors suggest that price increases for
coal may discourage deployment of technologies to capture and bury carbon to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions: in poorer countries, "producing cheap and affordable electricity is more important than
producing environmentally friendly electricity". A wake-up call on coal Taken together, the EWG and
IFE reports deliver a shocking message. For a world already concerned about future oil supplies,
uncertainties about coal undercut one of the primary strategies - turning supposedly abundant coal
into a liquid fuel - that is being touted for maintaining global transport networks. The sustainability of
China's economic growth, which has largely been based on a rapid surge in coal consumption, is thrown into
question. And the ability of the US to maintain its coal-powered electricity grids in coming decades is
also cast into doubt. In summary, we now have two authoritative studies reaching largely consistent
conclusions with devastating implications for the global economy. Surely these studies deserve follow-up
reviews of the data by the International Energy Agency. If the EWG and IFE conclusions hold, the world
will need to respond quickly with an enormous shift in the directions of energy conservation and
development of renewable sources of electricity. Climate concerns are already drawing some nations in
these directions; however, even nations leading the efforts may not be proceeding fast enough. For China
and the United States, the world's two most coal-dependent countries, the message could not be clearer:
whether or not global climate concerns are taken seriously, it is time to fundamentally revise the
current energy paradigm.
WNDI 2008 65
Nuclear Power Aff
Hegemony- Nuclear Energy Key
Nuclear Energy is effective and provides an avenue for the US to exercise leadership
Taylor Burke, J.D., University of Tulsa, 2006; B.A., Political Science and History, University of Tulsa, 2002
“NUCLEAR ENERGY AND PROLIFERATION: PROBLEMS, OBSERVATIONS, AND PROPOSALS” Boston
University Journal of Science and Technology Law” Winter 2006, Lexis [JH]
The answer to this question depends on whether one believes that a technologically feasible solution to the reprocessing problem exists.
The Ford and Carter administrations concluded that there was no such solution and that the risks of plutonium proliferation outweighed
the benefit of the technology. n180 Proliferation dealt a serious blow to the research and development of nuclear technology, in turn
contributing to the change in United States policy regarding the promotion of the technology worldwide. n181 Nuclear energy can
provide relatively cheap and emission-free energy in places that lack sufficient natural resources to
provide for their population. n182 As international energy demand continues to rise, nuclear energy is a
clear answer to offset the corresponding rise in cost. Furthermore, the promotion of such technology, while
not serving an ideological interest as it did during the Cold War, could serve a more prophylactic
measure in the future. Some of the potentially threatening nations in the world, such as North Korea, Belarus, and Afghanistan,
have extremely limited energy infrastructures. n183 Even if they could grow, these nations likely lack the capability to develop the basic
services, such as sufficient electric access, needed for successful development. n184 Proliferation-safe reactors, whether they be IFRs,
thorium reactors, or simple light water reactors (which often make the cost of [*22] reprocessing too great), would offset some of these
concerns. n185 In addition, better international monitoring could ease the concern of proliferation. The United States should
take a lead in promoting a diverse energy supply. As the growing international demand for fossil fuels
increases, so will international tensions over fossil fuel access, as well as the continuing moral
ambiguities policymakers face in dealing with a fungible energy source. n186 Nuclear energy is a
component of a larger strategy to diversify the global energy supply, particularly because it can
address the growing fossil fuel emission problems worldwide.
US leads the way in Nuclear Research; when it doesn’t research, nothing gets done
Taylor Burke, J.D., University of Tulsa, 2006; B.A., Political Science and History, University of Tulsa, 2002 “NUCLEAR ENERGY AND
PROLIFERATION: PROBLEMS, OBSERVATIONS, AND PROPOSALS” Boston University Journal of Science and Technology Law” Winter
2006, Lexis [JH]
This analysis also warrants two additional observations on nuclear energy. First,
one striking aspect of the last two
decades is the lack of legitimate research and development into nuclear energy. The United States has
always been a world leader in technological development. Worldwide research and development into
nuclear energy began to slow when the United States ended its research. n204 Following the decision to
ban reprocessing, the United States experimented with IFRs, but even that research has been dormant for
over a decade. n205 Given the public perception of nuclear energy in certain contexts, as well as the
economic challenges of the nuclear energy business, the United States interest in nuclear energy has
subsided as development has. There have been few new ideas and thus few new [*25] policies. n206 If the
argument that nuclear energy is a necessary step to offset the increased international demand is correct, then any policy that does not
take those technological development issues into account is a mistake. Second, the problems related to nuclear energy and proliferation
will not go away under the current policy framework. Foreign nations will still need energy and, occasionally, a state will attempt to
increase its power through the development of nuclear weapons. n207 This reality demands vigilance regarding the problems of
proliferation.
WNDI 2008 66
Nuclear Power Aff
Hegemony- Nuclear Energy Key

Expanding US nuclear energy is critical to restoring US soft power
School, IDEA: REVIVING THE NUCLEAR POWER OPTION IN THE UNITED STATES: USING DOMESTIC
ENERGY LAW TO CURE TWO PERCEPTIONS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW ILLEGALITY, Hofstra Law
Review, 35 Hofstra L. Rev. 425, Winter 2006, Lexis [JH]
It may now be time to rebuild that consensus and revive the growth of the nuclear power industry in
the United States. Our dependence on foreign oil has grown to an unacceptable degree and evidence of
the dangers of irreversible global catastrophe from global warming is mounting, while the energy
policy of the United States remains a prisoner of fossil fuels. This has resulted in widely held perceptions,
right or wrong, that the United States violated international law on the use of force by invading Iraq to secure foreign
oil sources and that it now is violating the letter and spirit of the emerging international law regime to deal with climate change.
Those perceptions can be removed by a domestic growth energy policy resting on existing domestic energy laws
that moves away from fossil fuels and expands nuclear power production. If fossil fuels continue to be
the centerpiece of long term domestic energy policy, those perceptions of international law illegality will persist
to the detriment of U.S. foreign policy for decades.
WNDI 2008 67
Nuclear Power Aff
International Competition- Europe ahead
America is behind in the nuclear arena; French model proves

Roger Cohen, former editor of International Herald Tribune “America Needs France’s Atomic Anne,” New York
Times, January 24, 2008. <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/opinion/24cohen.html> [HBP]
It’s not often that I find myself recommending a French state-owned industry as the answer to major U.S. problems, but I guess there’s
an exception to every rule. In this case the exception is the French nuclear energy company Areva, which provides
about 80 percent of the country’s electricity from 58 nuclear power plants, is building a new generation
of reactor that will come on line at Flamanville in 2012, and is exporting its expertise to countries from
China to the United Arab Emirates. Contrast that with the United States, where just 20 percent of
electricity comes from nuclear plants, no commercial reactor has come on line since 1996, no new
reactor has been ordered for decades, and debate about nuclear power remains paralyzing despite its
clean-air electricity generation in the age of global warming. Areva is headed by Anne Lauvergeon, a brilliant
product of France’s top schools. She’s earned the sobriquet “Atomic Anne,” a stylish “Vive les Nukes” saleswoman. The United States
needs her equivalent to cut through its nuclear power hang-ups. Those hesitations have been evident in this election year. Among
Democrats, Barack Obama has shown most willingness (albeit guarded) to back nuclear power, with Hillary Clinton multiplying caveats
and John Edwards opposed. Republican candidates are favorable, but the campaign suggests costly nuclear muddle will persist. It’s
time to look to the French. They’ve got their heads in the right place, with nuclear power enjoying a 70
percent approval rating. The Germans, by contrast, have gone silly-Green and are shunning nuclear power. The British,
more smart-Green, are reviving their plants. I know, that word “nuclear” still sends a frisson. Images
multiply of Hiroshima and Chernobyl and the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979 and
waste in dangerous perpetuity, not to mention proliferation and dirty bombs. But the lesson of the
post-9/11 world is that we have to get over our fears, especially irrational ones. Nuclear power has
proved safe in both France and America — not one radiation-related death has occurred in the history
of U.S. commercial nuclear power. It constitutes a vital alternative to the greenhouse-gas spewing coal-
power plants that account for over 50 percent of U.S. electricity generation. Thousands of people die
annually breathing the noxious particles of coal-fire installations. Of course, wind and solar power should be
developed, but even by mid-century they will satisfy only a fraction of U.S. energy needs, however much those needs are cut. Hundreds
of square miles of eyesore wind farms barely produce the electricity you get from a nuclear plant on less than a square mile.
“Nuclear power is the most efficient energy source we have,” said Gwyneth Cravens, author of “Power
to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Power.” “Uranium is energy-dense. If you got all your
electricity from nuclear for your lifetime, your share of the waste would fit in a soda can.” Cravens
once feared this waste so much that she demonstrated against nuclear power plants, but she’s come
around. Like Patrick Moore, a founder of Greenpeace who once lambasted nuclear power as
“criminal” and now advocates its use, she’s been convinced by the evidence. That’s called growing up.
Greenpeace remains opposed to nuclear power and Jim Riccio, a nuclear policy analyst for the organization, told me building more
plants in the United States would be expensive, wasteful and dangerous. “Why in God’s name would you want to build more targets for
terrorists?” he asked. Fair question, to which the answer is that jihadist terrorists should only dictate western energy policy to the degree
that the United States and its allies try to cut dependence on Middle Eastern oil. Where Riccio has a point is that wild cost overruns on
several nuclear power plants and on the planned Yucca Mountain Repository in Nevada for radioactive waste, which will cost some $30
billion to open, have suggested there may be better ways to spend money on energy diversification and saving. But again the
French, with the cleanest air in the industrialized world, have an answer. Their standardized design,
expedited approval process, and improving technology (evident in the third-generation Evolutionary Pressurized
Reactor) offer streamlined routes to cost-saving. They have also drastically reduced waste by
reprocessing most of it into fuel, a long-term answer to the disposal issue. Has the United States taken note?
Congressional incentives for new nuclear plants in the 2005 Energy Policy Act and plans for some two dozen new reactors suggest the
political ground may be shifting. For one possible plant, in Maryland, Areva has joined forces with Constellation Energy, a Baltimore
utility. Lauvergeon has said she wants to “reinstate” the nuclear industry in the United States. Vive Atomic Anne! Cooperation on a new
generation of American nuclear plants would be a powerful signal of the transformed Franco-U.S. relationship under President Nicolas
Sarkozy.
WNDI 2008 68
Nuclear Power Aff
International Competition- Nuclear Energy Key

America needs nuclear energy to remain economically competitive
Most of the world, Europe aside, now recognizes this point. Workers
in Asia and India are swiftly gaining access to
the powered machines that steadily boosted the productivity of the American factory worker
throughout the twentieth century. And the electricity driving those machines comes from power plants
designed—and often built—by U.S. vendors. The power is a lot less expensive than ours, though, since
it is generated the old-fashioned forget-the-environment way. There is little bother about protecting the river or
scrubbing the smoke. China’s answer to the 2-gigawatt Hoover Dam on the Colorado River is the Three Gorges project, an 18-gigawatt
dam on the Yangtze River. Combine cheaper supplies of energy with ready access to heavy industrial
machines, and it’s hard to see how foreign laborers cannot close the productivity gap that has
historically enabled American workers to remain competitive at considerably higher wages. Unless,
that is, the United States keeps on pushing the productivity of its own workforce out ahead of its
competitors. That—inevitably—means expanding our power supply and keeping it affordable, and
deploying even more advanced technologies of powered production. Nuclear power would help keep
the twenty-first-century U.S. economy globally competitive.
Alternative energy is key to restoring American economic leadership

Hal Raveche, president of the Stevens Institute of Technology, “Technology Innovation: America Needs a New
Strategy Now,” Washington Times, January 26, 2007, LexisNexis. [HBP]
America is being overtaken by a growing "army of protectors" those who seek to guard us from corporate greed, side effects of
medicines and even unhealthy foods. The ramifications undermine personal choice, the growth of business and industry, and threaten our
economic competitiveness. Conservatives and libertarians, business leaders and others compare us to a "nanny society," one where
government steps in to eliminate all risk from daily life. Liberals, trial lawyers and supporters of big government argue that if the
government has the ability to create a safer world for its citizens, it has a moral obligation to do so. While there is some validity to both
sides of the argument, the growing prevalence of a risk-averse mindset is stifling the American
entrepreneurial spirit that fuels the national economic engine. Government may have been among the
first to corner the risk-aversion market. The operating mantra for the bureaucracy was, and remains,
that the punishment for taking a risk and making a mistake to be ridiculed, disciplined or fired was far
more severe than the potential reward for thinking beyond the norm and dreaming up with a better
idea, program or policy. The result is to discourage innovation by many of the people who know best how to fix the broken
programs that they deal with every day. Elected leaders, as well as CEOs, who embark on radically different paths are often lambasted
by the protectors of the status quo and likely to find themselves with the label "former" attached to their titles simply for traveling down
the path of innovation. Risk aversion has had a devastating impact on America's leadership in technology.
The fact is, no president, Republican or Democrat, and no previous Congress has ever developed a
meaningful national technological strategy for the United States. Certainly, there were fits and starts the Kennedy
Space Program, the Carter Shale Oil Program, the Reagan Strategic Defense Initiative and the Clinton/Gore Human Genome Initiative
but never has a comprehensive and consistent strategy been employed. The failure may be directly linked to the
potential backlash that could result from a president or Congress being accused of "picking the winners and losers" for future business
growth. Unfortunately, this kind of government thinking has reached the private sector. The Sarbanes-Oxley reforms, whose purpose was
improving accountability and transparency in corporate governance, has also chased innovative thinkers from corporate boardrooms.
Choosing to serve on a corporate board or deciding to take a small private company public may now not be worth the risk. Risk
aversion in the private marketplace has had a paralyzing effect on high-tech growth. In 2000, there were an
estimated 170 initial public offerings for high-tech companies; by 2006 the number of such IPOs dwindled to 35. Economic
competition from Singapore, Taiwan, Korea, India, China and Japan reminds us of the atrophy in the
domestic auto industry. The burgeoning presence of nail and tanning salons on Main Street USA
stands in stark contrast to Singapore's stem-cell "research city," Taiwan's science parks and the new
R&D labs in Bangalore, India. To be remembered for rebuilding America, our president must commit
to re-establishing the global technological leadership of the United States and take a risk on some
technologies that meet our national needs, such as alternative energy, for decades to come. If the new
Congress really wants to improve the future for America's working families, it will leave the self-congratulatory echo chamber about
enhancements to the minimum wage and get down to the hard work of implementing a national strategy for technological innovation,
even if this threatens the defenders of the status quo. The 110th Congress can be inspired by the bipartisan 1980 Bayh-Dole Act,
enabling universities to own intellectual property from federally sponsored research. Prior to this transformational legislation, the annual
number of university patents fluctuated below 500. By 1990 it doubled and, by 2003 it exceeded 3,000, with a threefold increase in the
number of participating universities, which furthered high tech economic growth. We need such visionary initiatives now from Congress
and the president.
WNDI 2008 69
Nuclear Power Aff
Radiopharmaceuticals- Nuclear Energy Key

Having civilian nuclear reactors in the US is key to radiopharmaceuticals which save lives
NYT New York Times, “Reactor Shutdown Causing Medical Isotope Shortage”, December 6, 2007, Lexis
Medical treatments are being delayed or deferred at hospitals worldwide because of the extended
shutdown of a Canadian reactor. The reactor, the Atomic Energy of Canada reactor at Chalk River, Ontario, near Ottawa,
is North America's only source of the base isotope for technetium-99, a workhorse of modern medical
diagnostic systems. It is injected into patients 20 million times a year in the United States to create images
used in the diagnosis and treatment of a wide variety of illnesses including heart ailments, cancers and
gallbladder problems. The reactor closed on Nov. 18 for maintenance. It was scheduled to open five days later but remained
closed ''to complete the installation of safety-related equipment,'' the company said. On Wednesday, Atomic Energy's wholesaler, MDS
Nordion, said it did not expect full production to resume until mid-January. Because the isotopes created by the reactor decay rapidly,
they cannot be stockpiled, which is leading to growing shortages of the material at medical centers. Adding to the problem is the fact that
the Atomic Energy reactor produces 50 to 80 percent of the world's supply of molybdenum-99, the isotope that breaks down into
technetium-99. The shortfall has renewed decades-old calls for the United States to develop its own
medical isotope reactors rather than continuing to rely on imported products from a limited number of
producers. ''This is a bad news story in every sense of the word,'' said Dr. Alexander J. B. McEwan, the president of the Society of
Nuclear Medicine, which is based in Reston, Va. ''It means patients are going to suffer. People are going to look at this and say, 'Why are
we so reliant on a single supplier?''' Dr. Henry D. Royal, a professor of radiology at Washington University in St. Louis, added: ‘'The
fundamental problem is that the supply of radiopharmaceuticals is very fragile because we rely on
foreign imports, which we have no control over.'’ Several years ago, government-owned Atomic Energy sold its
wholesale distribution and sales business to MDS Nordion, an Ottawa-based company that is owned by MDS, the large Canadian
medical services company. (In a statement, MDS Nordion said that the reactor problem would reduce its quarterly earnings by $8
million to $9 million.) Technetium-99 has a shelf life of six hours, making it impractical to ship over any
distance. In the United States, hospitals usually buy specialized containers of molybdenum-99 known
as generators. Those devices, which are mostly sold by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Mallinckrodt, a unit of Covidien, use a
chemical process to separate the technetium-99 just before it is needed for patient tests. Like disposable
flashlight batteries, however, the generators eventually run down. The Atomic Energy reactor shutdown has left some
hospitals unable to find replacements. Hospitals affiliated with Yale University have been able to fill the gap by buying
technetium-99 from an outside laboratory, Dr. J. James Frost, a professor of diagnostic radiology, said. The shortage, however, is
already creating after-hours problems for emergency rooms at both Yale and Johns Hopkins University,
where Dr. Frost also holds an academic posting. With the private labs closed at night and the in-house isotope generators not working,
some patients now have to wait until morning for treatment, Dr. Frost said. While the effect of that is mostly
inconvenience for both the patients and hospitals, Dr. Frost said that lack of after-hour diagnostic isotopes
was potentially dangerous for a small number of patients with certain conditions. In Canada, several hospitals
have canceled nonurgent tests that require the isotope.
Radiopharmaceuticals are an integral part of diagnosis and several types of therapy

Robert Massey, LTC, MS, “Current Use of Therapeutic Radiopharmaceuticals for Patient Care” Medscape Today,
2000 < http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/419156>
Radiopharmaceuticals are generally classified as either being diagnostic or therapeutic in their
application. Although diagnostic agents have historically been the mainstay of the nuclear pharmacy
industry, during the past decade there has been increased interest in the development and use of
therapeutic radiopharmaceuticals. This shift in focus has been elicited primarily from research involving
combining radioactive isotopes with sophisticated molecular carriers. Because of radiation's damaging effect
on tissues, it is important to target the biodistribution of radiopharmaceuticals as accurately as possible.
Herein lies the future for the next generation of therapeutic radiopharmaceuticals. A therapeutic
radiopharmaceutical emits particulate radiation that typically travels short distances in body tissues,
where it either destroys or damages the surrounding cells in the area to which it has distributed.
Selection of an appropriate radionuclide for a particular therapeutic application is directly related to
the biolocalization of carrier molecules. Desired characteristics of therapeutic radiopharmaceuticals
are outlined in Table 1.
WNDI 2008 70
Nuclear Power Aff
Radiopharmaceuticals- Solve Laundry List

Tc-99 has many critical medical uses, including helping to solve heart diseases
Dr. Gary B. Schwochau, MD ,Internal Medicine Doctor & Nephrologist, “Technetium Applications” Spiritus-
Temporis, 2005 <http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/technetium/applications.html>
When Tc-99m is combined with a tin compound it binds to red blood cells and can therefore be used to
map circulatory system disorders. A pyrophosphate ion with Tc-99m adheres to calcium deposits in damaged
heart muscle, making it useful to gauge damage after a heart attack.{{inote|Technetium heart scan}} The sulfur
colloid of Tc-99m is scavenged by the spleen, making it possible to image the structure of that organ.{{Inote | The Encyclopedia of the
Chemical Elements, page 693, "Applications", paragraph 3 }}
Radiopharmaceuticals Solve HIV AND Cancer

PLOS (PLOS Medicine, A peer reviewed journal by the public academy of sciences, Targeted Killing of
Virally Infected Cells by Radiolabeled Antibodies to Viral Proteins,2006,
<http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0030427&ct=1>
We have demonstrated that the antibodies to HIV-1 envelope glycoproteins gp120 and gp41 labeled
with radioisotopes 213Bi and 188Re selectively killed chronically HIV-1-infected human T cells and acutely
HIV-1-infected human peripheral blood mononuclear cells (hPBMCs) in vitro. Treatment of SCID mice
harboring HIV-1-infected hPBMCs in their spleens with a 213Bi- or 188Re-labeled monoclonal antibody to
gp41 viral protein resulted in a greater than 99% elimination of HIV-1-infected cells in a dose-
dependent manner. The number of HIV-1-infected thymocytes decreased 2.5-fold in the human thymic
implant grafts of SCID mice treated with the 188Re-labeled antibody to gp41 compared with those
treated with the 188Re-control mAb. The treatment did not cause acute hematologic toxicity in the
treated mice. In cancer treatment, the success of FDA-approved drugs such as Zevalin and Bexxar (anti-
CD20 mAbs labeled with yttrium 90 [90Y] and iodine 131 [131I], respectively) in the treatment of relapsed or
refractory B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma is proof of the enormous potential of RIT for targeted
elimination of malignant cells and for treatment of patients who have failed all standard therapeutic
regimens. Recent encouraging reports on the use of RIT as an initial treatment for follicular lymphoma
[48] are making RIT a first-line anticancer therapy. This clinical experience using RIT creates a favorable environment
for the introduction and use of RIT for treating HIV-1-infected patients. The effectiveness of RIT for HIV-1 infection is enhanced
because the majority of long-lived infected cellular targets are lymphocytes, which are among the most radiosensitive cells in the body.
Radiopharmaceuticals save lives, reduce healthcare costs, and cure cancer

DOE, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear, Energy, and Science Technology, Report to Congress, March
2001, <http://www.nuclear.gov/pdfFiles/U233RptConMarch2001.pdf>
Medical isotopes save lives and reduce health care costs. Some of the more frequent uses of medical
radioisotopes include diagnosis and treatment of several major diseases, sterilization of medical
products, tissue grafts, nutrition research, and biomedical research into cellular processes. The
Department of Energy supports the U.S. health care industry and medical research by producing these
isotopes and through the support of fundamental isotope research. A class of medical isotopes -- alpha-
emitting radioisotopes -- is of growing interest in the cure of cancer. To understand this interest, the Department sponsored
a workshop on “Alpha-Emitters for Medical Therapy” in May 1996. As a result of the workshop, the Department, through the Office of
Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology, undertook significant efforts and expended several million dollars in order to establish a
domestic supply of the alpha-emitting radioactive isotopes actinium-225 (Ac-225) and bismuth-213 (Bi-213). Because of these efforts,
researchers have made tremendous advances in the diagnosis and treatment of cancerous tumors in the human body using monoclonal
antibodies and their molecular subunits in various forms as carriers for these radioactive isotopes.
WNDI 2008 71
Nuclear Power Aff
Radiopharmaceuticals- Solve Laundry List

Radiopharmaceuticals solve Cancer, AIDS and Bone Marrow Diseases
Annett Cary(Annette Cary, Trinity Herald, Report criticizes loss of medical isotopes, June 5, 2008,
<http://www.tri-cityherald.com/901/story/203876.html>
One top DOE official estimated that the isotopes could be used to treat 6,000 patients annually.
Research is being done to use isotopes derived from uranium 233 to treat acute myeloid leukemia, non-
Hodgkin lymphoma, lung cancer, pancreatic cancer and kidney cancer. It's also being investigated for treatment of
AIDS and for bone marrow transplants, according to the report. DOE responded that a merit-based peer
review would be conducted to examine the needs and priorities for actinium and bismuth, according to the
report. Radiopharmaceuticals bring wealth, health and happiness to the global community
Radiopharmaceuticals solve AIDS

Africa News (Africa News, Namibia; Nuclear Energy for Medicine, June 15, 2007, Lexis)
Like Janus, a powerful god in Greek mythology, nuclear technology has two different faces. It can be used to
develop Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). On the other hand, the same technology could be employed to
create Weapons of Mass Happiness (WMH). Let us harness nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and
bring wealth and happiness to the global community. Nuclear technology is a miracle tool that can be
used in power generation, desalination, and agricultural and manufacturing industries. This article is an
introduction to Nuclear Medicine. Nuclear Medicine Nuclear medicine is a special branch of medical science. It uses
nuclear tools like radioisotopes (radioactive isotopes) to diagnose and treat diseases. In 1935, Enrico Fermi began to use
radioactive elements (radioisotopes) to identify and treat a number of diseases. His initial efforts immensely contributed to the development of
nuclear medicine. As a part of the Manhattan Nuclear Project of World War 11, the United States of America constructed a few nuclear reactors at
Ork Ridge. These reactors produced the above-mentioned medical radioisotopes at a cheaper price for the use of nuclear medical applications. In
1946, the US Congress passed the Atomic Energy Act that permitted the production of medical isotopes at the Ork Ridge nuclear reactor complex.
Those initiatives hastened the progress of nuclear medicine. Radioisotopes Radioisotopes are produced by nuclear reactors.
They are used in agriculture and industry, research, medicine and other fields. The Department of Energy
(DOE)'s Office of Nuclear Energy of the USA is one of the well-established isotope producers in the world
which cater for international customers. Creating a radioisotope means changing the nucleus (centre) of an atom. This change can be done by
striking the nucleus with a sub-atomic particle (e.g. neutron, proton or an alpha particle). The aforesaid strike makes a reaction in the atom and
begins to release radiation. In the healthcare field, radioisotopes are used in medical diagnostics, imaging and cancer therapy, heart diseases and
other medical problems. As with other areas of healthcare, nuclear medicine is playing a critical role in
HIV/AIDS management. In addition, in the follow-up of HIV/AIDS patients, nuclear medical
applications help to diagnose HIV infection very precisely. Nuclear medical scanning (e.g. Aerosol and
Gallium-67 scanning) is used to diagnose patients exposed to Pneumocystis Carnini Pneumonia (PCP). It is simple, rapid and
accurate. For example, "a 42-year-old homosexual male represented with a 3-week history of fever and sweat. He was diagnosed as HIV-
positive 5 years earlier, but had not manifested with opportunistic infections (OI).. Nuclear medical scientists use scanning units supported by
radioisotopes to detect AIDS-related tumors like Kaposi's sarcoma. Imaging Technology Nuclear-based imaging is an advanced
medical tool that is used in diagnosis. In this testing system, radioactive substances are inserted into the patient's body. The
aforesaid radioactive substances are also known as radionuclide or tracers. In the presence of disease, a tracer will normally distribute around the
body or process unusually. Any abnormal psychological development, such as a fraction of a bone, will show a concentration of tracers around
that affected location. Broadly speaking, the diagnostic tests can be divided into two groups: in-vivo tests, where measurements are directly linked
to the patient; or in-vitro tests, where measurements are taken of samples collected from the patient's blood, urine or breath. Gamma Camera
Nuclear medicine diagnostic tests could be done through a gamma camera that takes images of a
patient's body parts or where radiation emits from radioactive particles already admitted to the
patient. This imaging procedure is also known as nuclear scintigraphy or radionuclide imaging. The images of above-cited tests (in-vivo and
in-vitro) could be captured by a gamma camera. These cameras can take three-dimensional images of a particular organ or areas of interest. For
example, this imaging technique can be performed to locate a brain tumor. In addition, the chemical form of Mecury-197 radioisotope is useful to
trace the tumor in the brain. Moreover, it detects bone cancers that cannot be photographed by an X-ray machine. Nuclear Treatment Africa's
Nobel Peace Prize winning archbishop Desmond Tutu was diagnosed with prostate cancer in 1996. He
received radiation treatment in New York. Modern nuclear medicine plays a crucial role in treatment.
Nowadays, radioisotopes have become a reliable tool that could be utilized to treat cancers, heart
disease and AIDS-related tumors such as Kaposi's sarcoma and other medical conditions. Some studies
have disclosed that one in every three persons reaching public or private hospitals are benefiting by
using radioisotopes-based diagnostic tests and treatments. Radiotherapy, using high-energy radiation, without harming
healthy tissues, eliminates the cancer cells or stops the spread of them. Moreover, after locating the radiation source of an unhealthy organ, such
as Iodine-131 in the thyroid gland, radiotherapy can treat that abnormal growth successfully. Besides that, nuclear powered mechanical hearts and
cardiac pacemakers are used to extend the lives of heart patients. New Frontier Presently, nuclear medicine is rapidly progressing as a special
discipline. It is backed and supported by nuclear science, radiology, genomics and biometrics, and
[Continued 1/2]
WNDI 2008 72
Nuclear Power Aff
Radiopharmaceuticals- Solves Laundry List

[Continued 2/2]
other sciences. For instance, the three-year postgraduate Nuclear Medicine Residency Program of the New York Medical College has been
recognized by the American Board of Nuclear Medicine. This course covers imaging systems, radioimmunotherapy, radiopharmacy, radiobiology
and nuclear-cardiology. The Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology (JNMT) and Journal of Nuclear Medicine (JNM) are the widely read
publications that contribute to the advancement of this emerging science. It is relevant to note here, that interested readers can be referred to a
recent publication in this field, "Developments in Nuclear Medicine" by Richard A Baum and others. Now this publication can be ordered online
by visiting www.amazon.com Economic Take-Off Thomas Friedman, one of the world's most influential American journalists, in his 'The World
is Flat' has highlighted: "For the first time in more than a century, the United States could well find itself falling behind other countries in the
capacity of scientific discoveries, innovations and development." Nevertheless, the developing world could not benefit from those inventions or
advanced technologies that initiated industrialization and prosperity in the developed world. As is happening in the fields of information
technology and nuclear science, the developing nations have missed the bus. Anyhow, we don't want to remain as consumer nations, raw-material
suppliers and foreign-aid recipients forever. Therefore, let us grab the constantly growing advanced scientific and
technological knowledge as soon as possible. In the context of the same argument, no one can ignore
the numerous benefits of nuclear technology.
WNDI 2008 73
Nuclear Power Aff
A2: Storage
Dry Cask Temporary Storage has Zero Risk and is the Optimal Way to Store Spent Fuel
Nucleonics Week, “Jaczko suggests rule change to encourage dry cask storage” May 22, 2008, Lexis
NRC Commissioner Gregory Jaczko said May 13 that NRC should consider a rulemaking to encourage utilities to
move spent fuel from their storage pools into dry storage casks. Speaking at the Nuclear Energy Institute's annual
Dry Storage Information Forum in Bonita Springs, Florida, Jaczko said the idea was "still in the formative stages" and that the
commission would need to discuss what the technical requirements for such a rule would look like. The use of dry storage
systems, which frees up pool storage space for hotter and newer spent fuel, has grown, Jaczko said. It has
proven to be "a very successful and effective way" to manage spent fuel, and NRC has developed a "very
established" licensing methodology, he said. Those factors present the agency with "a real policy issue" ?- that is,
whether to move more spent fuel now stored in pools to storage casks, Jaczko said. A probabilistic risk
assessment of dry storage that NRC staff published last year shows the risk is so low ? about a 10-12
probability of latent cancer fatalities ? that "from a safety perspective, this is really the optimal way to store fuel,"
he added. Jackzo said that the most significant risk occurs during the transfer of spent fuel from the pool to
the storage cask but added that risk is "arguably close to zero." But Jaczko said NRC has more work to do on the
security front, pointing to a planned rulemaking that would formalize security orders the agency issued to operators of dry storage
facilities following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
Dry Cask Storage is Normal Means for Spent Fuel Storage

U.S. NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel <http://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-
fuel-storage.html> June 02, 2008
There are two acceptable storage methods for spent fuel after it is removed from the reactor core: Spent
Fuel Pools - Currently, most spent nuclear fuel is safely stored in specially designed pools at individual
reactor sites around the country. Dry Cask Storage - If pool capacity is reached, licensees may move
toward use of above-ground dry storage casks.
Not Increasing Civilian Nuclear Dry Cask Storage leads to serious economic,
environmental and energy-security consequences.
Atsuyuki Suzuki et al., Professor of Nuclear Engineering in the Department of Quantum Engineering and
Systems Science and Project Leader of Security Management in the School of Engineering at the University of
Tokyo and Director of the Project on Socio-Techniques of Nuclear Energy. “A Safe, Flexible, and Cost-Effective
Near-Term Approach to Spent Fuel Management”, June, 2001
<http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/spentfuel.pdf>
The diverse technologies now available for storing spent nuclear fuel—from wet pools to dry casks—
offer safe, secure, and cost-effective options for storing the spent fuel generated by the world’s power
reactors for decades, or for much shorter periods of time, as circumstances warrant. These interim storage
possibilities will allow time for permanent options for management and disposal of spent fuel and nuclear
wastes to be prepared and implemented with the care they require. Interim storage of spent fuel can
also allow time for spent fuel management technology to improve, and for the economic,
environmental, and security advantages of different approaches to permanent management of spent
fuel and nuclear wastes to become clearer. There is an urgent need to provide increased interim storage
capacity in the United States, Japan, and around the world. Failure to meet this challenge could have serious
economic, environmental, and energy-security consequences. The spent fuel cooling ponds at nuclear
reactors in many countries around the world are filling up. Delays in both reprocessing and geologic
disposal programs have left reactor operators with far more spent fuel to manage than had been
expected when the nuclear plants were built. If additional storage capacity does not become available
— whether at the reactors or elsewhere—reactors could be forced to shut down well before the end of
their licensed lifetimes. Such a failure to provide adequate capacity to store spent fuel could result in
billions of dollars in economic losses, reduced diversity in electricity supply, and more consumption of
fossil fuel, emitting additional pollutants and greenhouse gases. Moreover, if the addition of interim
storage capacity is not managed appropriately, increasing quantities of spent fuel could end up being
stored in less than optimal conditions, reducing safety. Thus, providing additional spent fuel storage is
important not just to the interests of the nuclear industry, but to the interests of society as a whole.
WNDI 2008 74
Nuclear Power Aff
A2: Storage
Interim storage key part of the fuel cycle
Interim storage is a key element of the fuel cycle— regardless of whether the planned permanent option
is reprocessing or direct disposal. Interim storage of spent nuclear fuel is not simply a matter of
postponing decisions. It is a central element of an optimized nuclear fuel cycle—whether that fuel cycle
approach will ultimately involve direct disposal or reprocessing of the spent fuel. While there continue to
be strong differences of opinion over whether spent fuel should be regarded as a waste or a resource—and
there is some merit in each view—a consensus is emerging that interim storage of spent fuel is an
important strategic option for fuel management, which can be pursued by supporters of both open and
closed fuel cycles. Interim storage is a complement, not an alternative, to moving forward expeditiously
with permanent approaches to managing spent fuel and nuclear waste. Interim storage, by its nature, is
a temporary solution, designed to be safe and secure during a defined period when humans and their
institutions are monitoring it. It is not a substitute for a permanent approach to the nuclear waste
problem designed to provide safety for hundreds of thousands of years. Interim storage approaches
should be carefully designed to avoid undermining funding and political support for continued progress
toward acceptable permanent solutions for spent fuel management and radioactive waste disposal.
Even with amazing interim storage permanent storage is needed

Regardless of how much interim storage is provided, facilities for permanent disposal of nuclear wastes
will be needed, whether those facilities are intended to hold spent fuel, wastes from reprocessing spent
fuel, or both, and interim storage approaches should not be allowed to undermine efforts to develop
such facilities. Interim storage should not become a mechanism for this generation to simply leave
problems to the next; hence, it is important to make continued progress toward permanent solutions
(and a set-aside of sufficient funding to implement them) a part of any interim storage strategy. Indeed,
continued visible progress toward the establishment of such permanent waste facilities—providing some
confidence that “interim” facilities will not become “permanent”— is likely to be essential to gaining
political acceptance for the
WNDI 2008 75
Nuclear Power Aff
A2: Storage
Dry cask storage is the safest way to preserve spent fuel
In the United States, one of the most common arguments against nuclear power relates to the current proposal to bury spent fuel from
power plants in a permanent storage facility at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. In my opinion, resolution of this debate is really unnecessary
for the construction of new nuclear power plants because recent studies have shown that dry cask storage is a safe
and secure method of handling spent fuel for the next century. Dry casks are designed to cool the spent
fuel to prevent temperature elevation from radioactive decay and to shield the cask's surroundings
from radiation without the use of water or mechanical systems. Heat is released by conduction through
the solid walls of the cask (typically made of concrete, lead, steel, polyethylene, and boron-impregnated
metals or resins) and by natural convection or thermal radiation. The cask walls also shield the
surroundings from radiation. Spent fuel is usually kept in pools for five years before storage in dry
casks in order to reduce decay heat and inventories of radionuclides. As the bipartisan National Commission on
Energy Policy recently explained, dry cask storage "is a proven, safe, inexpensive waste-sequestering technology that would be good for
100 years or more, providing an interim, back-up solution against the possibility that Yucca Mountain is further delayed or derailed - or
cannot be adequately expanded before a further geologic repository can be ready." At present, most spent fuel is initially
stored in water-filled pools on each nuclear power plant site. After five years, the fuel has cooled
enough to be transferred to dry casks for storage, and many plants have built such casks onsite. The
National Research Council has pointed out that the temporary storage of spent fuel in a retrievable form, such as
dry cask storage, might provide opportunities for re-use of the material if new ways of using it were
developed in the future. In any event, the current availability of dry cask storage means that the
problem of spent fuel no longer appears to be an insurmountable barrier to building new nuclear
plants.
Storage of nuclear waste would be solved in a revived US nuclear power industry

Fourth, there are legitimate concerns about disposal and storage of nuclear waste. Throughout the fuel
cycle, low level and high level radioactive waste is created. Of particular concern, is spent nuclear fuel from
fuel rods that can no longer produce enough heat to make electricity. n51 Those highly radioactive spent fuel
rods require storage permanently and safely to prevent exposure to humans, animals and flora and
fauna. The waste disposal problem can be significantly ameliorated if the United States would lift its
ban on nuclear fuel reprocessing, which would allow spent fuel rods to be used again rather than
stored. n52 What is not taken into account in considering the revival of the nuclear power industry are
the substantial and real benefits in removing perceptions of international law illegality that have arisen
in the context of climate change and the use of force. These benefits are admittedly hard to quantify.
However, they belong firmly in the revival calculations.
WNDI 2008 76
Nuclear Power Aff
A2: Renewable Energy Sources

Renewable sources can play a limited role, at best, in providing energy
The goal of a completely renewable system of electric generation appeals to almost anyone who does
not have vested interests in the continued use of non-renewable energy sources. The currently available
renewable sources of electrical energy on a large scale are primarily hydroelectric power (hydro), wind,
and solar. The United States and individual states have provided some incentives for the creation of
renewable generating systems, and some European countries have provided even more, but renewable energy
resources can meet only a small fraction of reliable base-load electricity needs within the next decade
because: (1) their availability depends on external factors beyond human control, requiring backup by
reliable generation; (2) their potential location is also dependent on factors beyond our control; and (3)
new renewable technologies, although promising, are more than ten years away from large scale
production.
Solar energy has many reliability problems

Existing renewables are not reliably dispatchable, so they must be backed up by reliable sources that
can be counted on to meet base-load needs. For solar and wind energy, the reasons for their lack of
reliability are obvious: the sun never shines at night, and does not always shine during the day, while
wind's speed and consistency is highly variable in almost all locations. Although windmills have been used on a
small scale for millennia, the modern technology for building aggregations of dozens or hundreds of wind
turbines is relatively recent. As the scale of the equipment has grown, developers are now producing
wind turbines on towers many hundreds of feet tall. The long-term reliability of this kind of equipment
has never been tested. The fact that government subsidies in the U.S. make it possible for investors in wind farms to cash out their
investment quickly also reduce the developers' incentive to emphasize long-range reliability. Federal subsidies for wind power were
extended in the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
Hydroelectric power has numerous flaws

The unreliability of hydroelectric power is slightly less obvious, but equally important. Hydro is
created when water in a reservoir flows through tunnels in or around the dam that created the
reservoir. Hydro is considered to be renewable because the hydrologic cycle will continue to create at
least some rain indefinitely. The kinetic pressure of the flowing water turns the turbine directly, allowing electricity to be
generated without any combustion, thus qualifying hydro as a renewable. The reliability of hydro is qualified by two
factors: (1) the amount of water in the reservoir or river flow, which depends on the amount of
precipitation in the watershed, a quantity that varies seasonally and from year to year; (2) the extent to
which the water in the reservoir is in demand for other uses for which few alternative water sources
are available. Much of the hydro in the United States is located in the high mountain regions of the
western states. Climatologists are forecasting that future precipitation during the winter wet season is
likely to include more rain and less snow in these mountains, and the snow that falls will melt earlier in
the year. If this proves to be true, the water that is now made available by the annual snowmelt will not
be available during the hot weather when both electric companies and agricultural users need it the
most. Disputes between these two interests are already common, and likely to get worse, reducing the
reliability of hydro as a source for electric generation. Supplementing existing hydro sources with new
ones would require the construction of many large dams. From an engineering standpoint, the number
of locations in the United States in which such dams could be built are quite limited. Building on these
sites would often create serious issues related to relocation, aquatic wildlife, disruption of existing
recreation patterns, and destruction of protected parks and other sites of major ecological value.
Consequently, few energy analysts project substantial increases in hydro supplies.
WNDI 2008 77
Nuclear Power Aff
A2: Accidents/Radiation
New studies prove radiation exposure has little negative effect

Mark Henderson, Science Editor of The Times, “Danger from Radiation is Exaggerated, Say Scientists,” The
Times, July 10, 2006. <http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article685386.ece>[HBP]
The dangers of radiation to human health have been exaggerated significantly, according to scientists
who have examined the legacy of the Chernobyl disaster 20 years ago. Research into the aftermath of
the meltdown at the Soviet nuclear reactor has suggested that low levels of radioactivity are not as
harmful as believed — and may even be beneficial. Evidence from people and animals exposed to fallout has convinced
experts that the risks of radiation follow a much more complex pattern than predicted. Generally, the hazards are thought to
rise directly with increasing doses of radiation. But the new theory suggests that there is a threshold,
below which any amount of exposure is probably safe. The theory will be outlined on Thursday during a BBC Two
Horizon documentary. It will intensify controversy over the safety of nuclear power in the week in which the Government’s energy
review is expected to back a new generation of atomic plant. Scientists on the program said that there was mounting
evidence that the dangerous reputation of radiation and nuclear energy was unjustified. Mike
Repacholi, of the World Health Organization radiation program, said: “People hear radiation, they
think of the atomic bomb and they think of thousands of deaths. They think that the Chernobyl reactor
accident was equivalent to the atomic bombing in Japan, which is absolutely untrue.” The Chernobyl
disaster was initially predicted to cause hundreds of thousands of deaths. Two decades later the death
toll stands at 56. The United Nations Chernobyl Forum estimates that no more than 4,000 people will
die as a direct result of fallout, while radiation may be a contributory factor in another 5,000 deaths.
Dr Repacholi said that even these estimates could be too high. While 4,000 cases of thyroid cancer have been
detected in the Chernobyl region, with 15 deaths, many can be attributed to better detection because of the screening conducted after the
disaster. The main negative health impacts of Chernobyl were not caused by the radiation, but a fear of
it, he said. “We know that there were low doses of radiation received by a large number of people. We
don’t want to minimize the effects but we also know that the fear and anxiety about radiation was a
much greater factor and it’s this fear which has caused a huge number of health complaints that have
overloaded the healthcare system.” The low number of deaths and adverse health effects suggests that
the low levels of radiation to which people around Chernobyl were exposed were not as dangerous as
had been assumed. Further evidence has been taken from wildlife in the most contaminated area around the reactor. Research by
Professor Ron Chesser, of Texas Tech University, found that mammals exposed to 8 to 15 millisieverts of radiation a day — equivalent
to 8,000 chest X-rays — showed none of the genetic damage that his team had expected. “The radioactivity, even though it was very
high according to all of our measures, was not enough to result in any appreciable measure of DNA damage in animals that lived their
entire life in this area,” Professor Chesser said. “This was something that that we really didn’t expect.” Other research into natural
background radiation also suggests that low levels of exposure do not cause genetic damage or cancer. Antoine Brooks, of Washington
State University, said: “We have, through our fear of radiation, parlayed it into a major player, which it is not.” Horizon: Nuclear
Nightmares will be broadcast on BBC Two at 9pm on Thursday.
WNDI 2008 78
Nuclear Power Aff
Modern nuclear plants are safe from accidents

Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, “Going Nuclear: A Green Makes the Case”, Washington Post, April 16,
2006. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html>[HBP]
Look at it this way:More than 600 coal-fired electric plants in the United States produce 36 percent of U.S.
emissions -- or nearly 10 percent of global emissions -- of CO2, the primary greenhouse gas responsible
for climate change. Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source that can reduce
these emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power. And these days it can do so
safely. I say that guardedly, of course, just days after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced that his country had
enriched uranium. "The nuclear technology is only for the purpose of peace and nothing else," he said. But there is widespread
speculation that, even though the process is ostensibly dedicated to producing electricity, it is in fact a cover for building nuclear
weapons. And although I don't want to underestimate the very real dangers of nuclear technology in the
hands of rogue states, we cannot simply ban every technology that is dangerous. That was the all-or-
nothing mentality at the height of the Cold War, when anything nuclear seemed to spell doom for
humanity and the environment. In 1979, Jane Fonda and Jack Lemmon produced a frisson of fear with their starring roles in
"The China Syndrome," a fictional evocation of nuclear disaster in which a reactor meltdown threatens a city's survival. Less than two
weeks after the blockbuster film opened, a reactor core meltdown at Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island nuclear power plant sent shivers
of very real anguish throughout the country. What nobody noticed at the time, though, was that Three Mile Island was in fact
a success story: The concrete containment structure did just what it was designed to do -- prevent
radiation from escaping into the environment. And although the reactor itself was crippled, there was
no injury or death among nuclear workers or nearby residents. Three Mile Island was the only serious
accident in the history of nuclear energy generation in the United States, but it was enough to scare us
away from further developing the technology: There hasn't been a nuclear plant ordered up since then. Today, there
are 103 nuclear reactors quietly delivering just 20 percent of America's electricity. Eighty percent of
the people living within 10 miles of these plants approve of them (that's not including the nuclear workers).
Although I don't live near a nuclear plant, I am now squarely in their camp. And I am not alone among seasoned environmental activists
in changing my mind on this subject. British atmospheric scientist James Lovelock, father of the Gaia theory, believes that nuclear
energy is the only way to avoid catastrophic climate change. Stewart Brand, founder of the "Whole Earth Catalog," says the
environmental movement must embrace nuclear energy to wean ourselves from fossil fuels. On occasion, such opinions have been met
with excommunication from the anti-nuclear priesthood: The late British Bishop Hugh Montefiore, founder and director of Friends of
the Earth, was forced to resign from the group's board after he wrote a pro-nuclear article in a church newsletter. There are signs of a
new willingness to listen, though, even among the staunchest anti-nuclear campaigners. When I attended the Kyoto climate meeting in
Montreal last December, I spoke to a packed house on the question of a sustainable energy future. I argued that the only way to reduce
fossil fuel emissions from electrical production is through an aggressive program of renewable energy sources (hydroelectric,
geothermal heat pumps, wind, etc.) plus nuclear. The Greenpeace spokesperson was first at the mike for the question period, and I
expected a tongue-lashing. Instead, he began by saying he agreed with much of what I said -- not the nuclear bit, of course, but there was
a clear feeling that all options must be explored. Here's why: Wind and solar power have their place, but because they
are intermittent and unpredictable they simply can't replace big baseload plants such as coal, nuclear
and hydroelectric. Natural gas, a fossil fuel, is too expensive already, and its price is too volatile to risk
building big baseload plants. Given that hydroelectric resources are built pretty much to capacity,
nuclear is, by elimination, the only viable substitute for coal. It's that simple.
WNDI 2008 79
Nuclear Power Aff
Implications of Chernobyl were greatly exaggerated

IHT International Herald Tribune, “Chernobyl's Dangers Called Far Exaggerated” September 6, 2005,
<http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/09/05/news/nuke.php>[HBP]
Nearly 20 years after the huge nuclear accident at Chernobyl, a new scientific report has found that its
effects on health and the environment were significantly less severe than scientists initially predicted. In
light of the findings, says the report that was made public Monday, compensation programs for millions of people classified as
Chernobyl victims should be scaled back in Ukraine, where the accident occurred, and in neighboring Belarus and Russia. The
programs, the report says, have fostered a culture of dependency, creating "a major barrier to the region's recovery." According to
"Chernobyl's Legacy: Health, Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts," written by a panel of more than 100 experts
convened by United Nations agencies, 4,000 deaths will probably be attributable ultimately to the
accident - a large number, but fewer than the tens of thousands of deaths that were predicted at the
time. Fewer than 50 deaths, all among reactor staff and emergency personnel, can be directly
attributed to acute radiation exposure after the No. 4 reactor at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant
exploded and burned on April 26, 1986, the report said. The remainder will largely be due to cancers in
people exposed to radiation near Chernobyl, about 110 kilometers, or 70 miles, north of Kiev, near
Ukraine's border with Belarus. But for millions of other people in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine who were
exposed to radioactive particles spread by the wind, health effects have proved generally minimal, the
report said. Likewise, despite previous forecasts, there has been no observed rise in the incidence of leukemia, a blood cancer widely
associated with radiation exposure, except perhaps a small rise among workers who were in the contaminated plant.
Chernobyl was caused by inherently bad design and management

Nuclear plants are not safe. Although Three Mile Island was a success story, the accident at Chernobyl, 20
years ago this month, was not. But Chernobyl was an accident waiting to happen. This early model of
Soviet reactor had no containment vessel, was an inherently bad design and its operators literally blew
it up. The multi-agency U.N. Chernobyl Forum reported last year that 56 deaths could be directly
attributed to the accident, most of those from radiation or burns suffered while fighting the fire. Tragic
as those deaths were, they pale in comparison to the more than 5,000 coal-mining deaths that occur
worldwide every year. No one has died of a radiation-related accident in the history of the U.S. civilian
nuclear reactor program. (And although hundreds of uranium mine workers did die from radiation exposure underground in the
early years of that industry, that problem was long ago corrected.) Within 40 years, used fuel has less than one-
thousandth of the radioactivity it had when it was removed from the reactor. And it is incorrect to call
it waste, because 95 percent of the potential energy is still contained in the used fuel after the first
cycle. Now that the United States has removed the ban on recycling used fuel, it will be possible to use
that energy and to greatly reduce the amount of waste that needs treatment and disposal. Last month, Japan
joined France, Britain and Russia in the nuclear-fuel-recycling business. The United States will not be far behind.
WNDI 2008 80
Nuclear Power Aff
A2: Uranium Supply

There is enough Uranium to power the entire world for Billions of years
John McCarthy, Professor Emeritus of Computer Science at Stanford University, “Frequently Asked Questions
About Nuclear Energy” July 17, 2008 <http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclear-faq.html>
In 1993 there were 109 licensed power reactors in the U.S. and about 400 in the world. They generated about 20 percent of the U.S.
electricity. (There are also a large number of naval power reactors.) The expansion of nuclear power depends
substantially on politics, and this politics has come out differently in different countries. Very likely, after some time, the
countries whose policies turn out badly will copy the countries whose policies turn out well. There are
only 104 operating reactors in 2007 and the percent of electricity that was nuclear was about 17. In
2007 five applications were made to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to construct and operate new
nuclear power plants. For how long will nuclear power be available? Present reactors that use only the U-235 in
natural uranium are very likely good for some hundreds of years. Bernard Cohen has shown that with breeder
reactors, we can have plenty of energy for some billions of year. Cohen's argument is based on using uranium from
sea water. Other people have pointed out that there is more energy in the uranium impurity in coal than could
come from burning the coal. There is also plenty of uranium in granite. None of these sources is likely to be used
in the next thousand years, because there is plenty of much more cheaply extracted uranium in conventional
uranium ores. A power reactor contains a core with a large number of fuel rods. Each rod is full of pellets of uranium oxide. An
atom of U-235 fissions when it absorbs a neutron. The fission produces two fission fragments and other particles that fly off at high
velocity. When they stop the kinetic energy is converted to heat - 10 million times as much heat as is produced by burning an atom of the
carbon in coal. See the supplement for some interesting nuclear details.
WNDI 2008 81
Nuclear Power Aff
A2: Terrorism
Modern nuclear facilities are safe from terrorist threats
Nuclear reactors are vulnerable to terrorist attack. The
six-feet-thick reinforced concrete containment vessel
protects the contents from the outside as well as the inside. And even if a jumbo jet did crash into a
reactor and breach the containment, the reactor would not explode. There are many types of facilities
that are far more vulnerable, including liquid natural gas plants, chemical plants and numerous
political targets. Nuclear fuel can be diverted to make nuclear weapons. This is the most serious issue associated with nuclear
energy and the most difficult to address, as the example of Iran shows. But just because nuclear technology can be put to evil purposes is
not an argument to ban its use. Over the past 20 years, one of the simplest tools -- the machete -- has been used
to kill more than a million people in Africa, far more than were killed in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki
nuclear bombings combined. What are car bombs made of? Diesel oil, fertilizer and cars. If we banned
everything that can be used to kill people, we would never have harnessed fire. The only practical
approach to the issue of nuclear weapons proliferation is to put it higher on the international agenda
and to use diplomacy and, where necessary, force to prevent countries or terrorists from using nuclear
materials for destructive ends. And new technologies such as the reprocessing system recently introduced in Japan (in which
the plutonium is never separated from the uranium) can make it much more difficult for terrorists or rogue states to use civilian materials
to manufacture weapons.
Nuclear reactors are virtually impenetrable by terrorists

Gwyneth Cravens, Science author and journalist, “Terrorism and Nuclear Energy: Understanding the Risks”, The
Brookings Institute, Spring 2002. <http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2002/spring_weapons_cravens.aspx>[HBP]
Could any of the 103 nuclear reactors in the United States be turned into a bomb? No. The laws of
physics preclude it. In a nuclear weapon, radioactive atoms are packed densely enough within a small
chamber to initiate an instantaneous explosive chain reaction. A reactor is far too large to produce the
density and heat needed to create a nuclear explosion. Could terrorists turn any of our reactors into a
Chernobyl? Again, extremely unlikely. American reactors have a completely different design. All reactors
require a medium around the fuel rods to slow down the neutrons given off by the controlled chain reaction that ultimately produces heat
to make steam to turn turbines that generate electricity. In the United States the medium is water, which also acts as a coolant. In the
Chernobyl reactor it was graphite. Water is not combustible, but graphite—pure carbon—is combustible at high temperatures.
Abysmal management, reckless errors, violation of basic safety procedures, and poor engineering at
Chernobyl caused the core to melt down through several floors. A subsequent explosion involving
steam and hydrogen blew off the roof (there was no containment structure) and ignited the graphite.
Most of the radioactive core spewed out. A similar meltdown at the Three Mile Island power plant in 1979—one caused by
equipment malfunctions and human failure to grasp what was happening and respond appropriately—involved no large explosion, no
breach. The reactor automatically shut down. Loss of coolant water caused half the core to melt, but its debris was held by the
containment vessel. Contaminated water flooded the reactor building, but no one was seriously injured. A minute quantity of radioactive
gases (insignificant, especially in comparison to the radionuclides routinely discharged from coal-fired plants in the region) escaped
through a charcoal-filtered stack and was dissipated by wind over the Atlantic, never reaching the ground. The people and land around
the plant were unharmed. In response, the NRC initiated more safeguards at all plants, including improvements in equipment
monitoring, redundancy (with two or more independent systems for every safety-related function), personnel training, and emergency
responsiveness. The commission also started a safety rating system that can affect the price of plant owners' stock. The new science of
probabilistic risk assessment, developed to ensure the safety of the world's first permanent underground nuclear waste-disposal facility,
has led to new risk-informed regulation. In over two decades no meltdowns have occurred and minor mishaps at all nuclear plants have
decreased sharply. Cuts by Congress in the NRC's annual research budget over the past 20 years—from $200 million to $43 million—
may have considerably compromised ongoing
[Continued 1/2]
WNDI 2008 82
Nuclear Power Aff
A2: Terrorism
[Continued 2/2]
U.S. nuclear power plants, which are subject to both federal and
reforms and effectiveness, however.
international regulation, are designed to withstand extreme events and are among the sturdiest and
most impenetrable structures on the planet—second only to nuclear bunkers. Three nesting containment
barriers shield the fuel rods. First, metal cladding around the rods contains fission products during the life of the fuel. Then a large steel
vessel with walls about five inches thick surrounds the reactor and its coolant. And enclosing that is a large building made of a shell of
steel covered with reinforced concrete four to six feet thick. After the truck-bomb explosion at the World Trade Center in 1993 and the
crash of a station wagon driven by a mentally ill intruder into the turbine building (not the reactor building) at Three Mile Island, plants
multiplied vehicle and other barriers and stepped up detection systems, access controls, and alarm stations. Plants also enhanced
response strategies tested by mock raids by commandos familiar with plant layouts. These staged intrusions have occasionally been
successful, leading to further corrections. On September 11, all nuclear facilities were put on highest alert indefinitely. Still more
protective barriers are being erected. The NRC, after completing a thorough review of all levels of plant security, has just mandated
additional personnel screening and access controls as well as closer cooperation with local law-enforcement agencies. Local
governments have posted state troopers or the National Guard around commercial plants, and military surveillance continues. And if a
jetliner slammed into a reactor? Given what is now publicly known, one could predict that earthquake
sensors, required in all reactors, would trigger automatic shutdown to protect the core. Scientists at the
national labs are calculating whether containment structures could withstand a jumbo jet, specifically
the impact of its engines, which are heavier than the fuselage, and any subsequent fire. Even the worst
case—a reactor vessel breach—would involve no nuclear explosion, only a limited dispersal of
radioactive materials. The extent of the plume would depend on many variables, especially the
weather. As a precaution, no-fly zones have been imposed over all nuclear power plants. Military
reactors used for weapons production have all been closed for a decade and are spaced miles apart on
isolated reservations hundreds of miles square. Any release of radioactivity would remain on site.
Terrorist attacks on nuclear reactors are highly unlikely

Terrorists could not acquire bomb-making material from spent fuel in a nuclear power plant, because
the material would be too radioactive for them to handle. Nor would it be feasible to bomb an
American reactor in a way that would release deadly radiation. All reactors in American power plants
are contained in structures made of heavy steel and concrete three to four feet thick, and the reactor
pressure vessel itself is further protected by steel walls eight inches thick. The robust construction of
nuclear power plants would provide substantially more protection against assault with airplanes or
other types of weapons than exists at "other critical infrastructure such as chemical plants, refineries, and fossil-fuel-fired electrical
generating stations." Attacking a plant by crashing an airplane into it would be difficult because the reactor
is a small, low structure often surrounded by large but harmless cooling towers. Even an attempt to hit
a reactor with a large airliner would be unlikely to succeed in releasing radiation, with success depending on
the attacker's "unpredictable "good fortune.'" Legitimate concerns have been raised that some (but not all) existing nuclear power plants
have spent fuel storage pools in locations that might be susceptible to a terrorist attack that could drain the water from the pool, which
might cause a release of radiation if the water was not quickly replaced. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued new regulations
to protect against this possibility, and designers of newly-constructed power plants are now aware of this potential problem and will
avoid it. Insofar as the risk of accidents is concerned, few industries - and certainly not the coal industry
- have a safety record as exemplary as the nuclear power industry. The operation of U.S. nuclear power
plants has proven to be very safe; the National Commission on Energy Policy has affirmed that "experience with nuclear
power plants over the past decade and more, in the United States and elsewhere, has demonstrated that these plants can be
operated with high degrees of reliability and safety and extremely low exposures of workers and public
radiation." The same can be said of power plants elsewhere in the world, except in the Soviet Union. University of Washington
nuclear physicist David Bodansky states that "for commercial reactors in the non-Soviet world, which account for the largest part of the
reactor experience, the safety record is excellent." At no such power plant has an accident "caused the known death of any nuclear plant
worker from radiation exposure or ... exposed any member of the general public to a substantial radiation dose."
WNDI 2008 83
Nuclear Power Aff
A2: Greenhouse Gases

The cost of creating a new nuclear reactor is stopping the revival of nuclear power, but the
GHGs stopped by using Nuclear Power outweigh
First, nuclear power remains at present relatively expensive under current financial comparisons. The
cost of new nuclear plant construction per kilowatt hour is roughly $ 1500 compared to half that for a
new coal plant. n46 However, those cost comparisons do not fully internalize the associated global
warming costs associated with GHG [*433] emissions from coal fired power production. In addition, the
cost benefits of reducing GHG emissions by using nuclear power plants is also not reflected in current
cost calculations. The cost comparisons also do not reflect any of the benefits achieved by curing the
perceptions of illegality with regard to the use of force or to global warming. Cost calculations could
also be reduced on a short term basis with government subsidies for the first few plants until
economies of scale kick in with a revived nuclear industry, which would further reduce the cost per
kilowatt hour.
Safety of Nuclear Power in the US has greatly increased and GHG emissions stopped
outweigh the possibility of leaks or terrorist attacks
Second, since the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 and the 1987 Chernobyl plant meltdown in the Ukraine, there are
concerns about plant safety and harm from accidents. Since those accidents, many industry and government
measures have been undertaken to improve safety margins at nuclear plants in the United States. In
addition, nuclear plant technology has changed greatly and is continuing to change to produce safer
plants. In any event, the old Chernobyl type technology has never been used in the United States. n47 There is
also a new concern about the possibility of terrorist strikes against nuclear power plants and those
safety concerns must be taken into consideration. n48 In weighting safety concerns, it must be appreciated that
global warming from GHG emissions can potentially produce far more catastrophic harms to the planet
than local significant releases of radiation from a nuclear plant accident or terrorist strike for that matter.
n49
The amount of GHG emissions decreased by the use of Nuclear power outweigh the
possibility of leaks or terrorist attacks
Second, since the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 and the 1987 Chernobyl plant meltdown in the Ukraine, there are concerns about
plant safety and harm from accidents. Since those accidents, many industry and government measures have been undertaken to improve
safety margins at nuclear plants in the United States. In addition, nuclear plant technology has changed greatly and is continuing to
change to produce safer plants. In any event, the old Chernobyl type technology has never been used in the United States. n47 There
is also a new concern about the possibility of terrorist strikes against nuclear power plants and those safety
concerns must be taken into consideration. n48 In weighting safety concerns, it must be appreciated that global warming
from GHG emissions can potentially produce far more catastrophic harms to the planet than local
significant releases of radiation from a nuclear plant accident or terrorist strike for that matter. n49
WNDI 2008 84
Nuclear Power Aff
A2: Cost Efficiency
Nuclear is the most cost-efficient energy form

Nuclear energy is expensive.
It is in fact one of the least expensive energy sources. In 2004, the average cost of
producing nuclear energy in the United States was less than two cents per kilowatt-hour, comparable
with coal and hydroelectric. Advances in technology will bring the cost down further in the future.
Nuclear energy is much cheaper than coal

World Nuclear Association, “The Economics of Nuclear Power,” July 2008
<http://world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html> [HBP]
The report of a major European study of the external costs of various fuel cycles, focusing on coal and
nuclear, was released in mid 2001 - ExternE. It shows that in clear cash terms nuclear energy incurs
about one tenth of the costs of coal. The external costs are defined as those actually incurred in relation to health and the
environment and quantifiable but not built into the cost of the electricity. If these costs were in fact included, the EU price of electricity
from coal would double and that from gas would increase 30%. These are without attempting to include global warming. The European
Commission launched the project in 1991 in collaboration with the US Department of Energy, and it was the first research project of its
kind "to put plausible financial figures against damage resulting from different forms of electricity production for the entire EU". The
methodology considers emissions, dispersion and ultimate impact. With nuclear energy the risk of accidents is factored in along with
high estimates of radiological impacts from mine tailings (waste management and decommissioning being already within the cost to the
consumer). Nuclear energy averages 0.4 euro cents/kWh, much the same as hydro, coal is over 4.0 cents
(4.1-7.3), gas ranges 1.3-2.3 cents and only wind shows up better than nuclear, at 0.1-0.2 cents/kWh
average. NB these are the external costs only.
Nuclear energy is increasingly cost-effective

World Nuclear Association, “The New Economics of Nuclear Power,” December 2005
< http://world-nuclear.org/reference/pdf/economics.pdf > [HBP]
The increased economic competitiveness of 21st century nuclear power arises from cost reductions in
construction, financing, and plant operations, and a still further reduction in already low costs for
waste management and decommissioning. Construction costs per kW for nuclear plants have fallen
considerably due to standardized design, shorter construction times and more efficient generating
technologies. Further gains are expected as nuclear technology becomes even more standardized around a few globally-accepted
designs. Meanwhile, recent new-build experience has demonstrated that new plants can be built on time and on budget. Financing
costs for new nuclear plants, a critical component of nuclear economics, are expected to fall as new
approaches are developed and tested to increase certainty and to lower investor risk. Meanwhile, in many
countries, licence procedures are being streamlined – a development facilitated by the nuclear industry’s strong worldwide safety
performance. Streamlined licensing will retain rigorous standards but reduce regulatory cost and uncertainty by establishing predictable
technical parameters and timescales, from design certification through to construction and operating licences. Operating costs of
nuclear power plants have fallen steadily over the past twenty years as capacity factors have increased,
squeezing far more output from the same generating capacity. (In the USA, operating costs per KWh
shrank by 44% between 1990 and 2003.) As marginal costs of generation from nuclear plants have fallen below prices of
most other generating modes, owners have found it worthwhile to invest in nuclear plant refurbishment and capacity up-rates. Nuclear
power’s low marginal cost and its high degree of price stability and predictability have also encouraged nuclear plant owners to seek
operating licence extensions for nearly all reactors. Waste and decommissioning costs, which are included in the operational costs of
nuclear plants, represent a tiny fraction of the lifetime costs of a reactor’s operation. Nuclear plant economics are thus largely insensitive
to these costs and will become even less so as fuel efficiency continues to increase and as waste and decommissioning costs are spread
over reactor lifetimes that are becoming even longer.
WNDI 2008 85
Nuclear Power Aff
A2: Warming/Climate
Replacing coal with nuclear energy cuts emissions by 1/3
The 600-plus coal-fired plants emit nearly 2 billion tons of CO2annually -- the equivalent of the exhaust from
about 300 million automobiles. In addition, the Clean Air Council reports that coal plants are responsible for
64 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions, 26 percent of nitrous oxides and 33 percent of mercury emissions.
These pollutants are eroding the health of our environment, producing acid rain, smog, respiratory illness
and mercury contamination. Meanwhile, the 103 nuclear plants operating in the United States effectively
avoid the release of 700 million tons of CO2emissions annually -- the equivalent of the exhaust from more
than 100 million automobiles. Imagine if the ratio of coal to nuclear were reversed so that only 20 percent of
our electricity was generated from coal and 60 percent from nuclear. This would go a long way toward cleaning the air and
reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Every responsible environmentalist should support a move in that direction.
Nuclear energy can phase out fossil fuels

We’re burning our 40 quads of raw fuel to generate about 3.5 trillion kilowatt-hours of electricity per
year; if the automotive plug-and-play future does unfold on schedule, we’ll need as much as 7 trillion
kWh per year by 2025. How should we generate the extra trillions of kilowatt-hours? With hydrogen, the
most optimistic Green visionaries reply—produced by solar cells or windmills. But it’s not possible to take such proposals seriously.
New York City consumes so much energy that you’d need, at a minimum, to cover two cities with solar cells to power a single city (see
“How Cities Green the Planet,” Winter 2000). No conceivable mix of solar and wind could come close to supplying the trillions of
additional kilowatt-hours of power we’ll soon need. Nuclear power could do it—easily. In all key technical respects,
it is the antithesis of solar power. A quad’s worth of solar-powered wood is a huge forest—beautiful to
behold, but bulky and heavy. Pound for pound, coal stores about twice as much heat. Oil beats coal by
about twice as much again. And an ounce of enriched-uranium fuel equals about 4 tons of coal, or 15
barrels of oil. That’s why minuscule quantities contained in relatively tiny reactors can power a
metropolis. What’s more, North America has vast deposits of uranium ore, and scooping it up is no real
challenge. Enrichment accounts for about half of the fuel’s cost, and enrichment technologies keep
improving. Proponents of solar and wind power maintain—correctly—that the underlying technologies for these energy sources keep
getting cheaper, but so do those that squeeze power out of conventional fuels. The lasers coming out of the same
semiconductor fabs that build solar cells could enrich uranium a thousand times more efficiently than
the gaseous-diffusion processes currently used. And we also know this: left to its own devices, the market has not pursued
thin, low-energy-density fuels, however cheap, but has instead paid steep premiums for fuels that pack more energy into less weight and
space, and for power plants that pump greater power out of smaller engines, furnaces, generators, reactors, and turbines. Until the 1970s,
engineering and economic imperatives had been pushing the fuel mix inexorably up the power-density curve, from wood to coal to oil to
uranium. And the same held true on the demand side, with consumers steadily shifting toward fuels carrying more power, delivered
faster, in less space. Then King Faisal and Three Mile Island shattered our confidence and convinced regulators, secretaries of energy,
and even a president that just about everything that the economists and engineers thought they knew about energy was wrong. So wrong
that we had to reverse completely the extraordinarily successful power policies of the past.
Nuclear facilities emit no greenhouse gases

The use of nuclear fuel to generate electricity causes no emissions of greenhouse gases. As of 2003, nuclear
power accounted for 69% of the carbon-free generation in the United States. Even if the full life cycle of a nuclear power
plant is calculated, the emissions of greenhouse gases are negligible. The avoidance of greenhouse gas
emissions has been a major factor in converting some prominent environmentalists to the support of
new nuclear reactor construction. Many companies in the United States now recognize the need to
factor in the potential cost of complying with future greenhouse gas regulations in evaluating power
plant proposals, and some of the countries that have agreed to comply with the Kyoto protocol on the reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions are looking at nuclear power as a way to facilitate compliance.
WNDI 2008 86
Nuclear Power Aff
A2: Warming/Climate
Nuclear Energy doesn’t contribute much to greenhouse gas emissions
Nuclear energy, relative to fossil fuels, contributes little to greenhouse gas emissions.[15] The extent to
which increasing reliance on nuclear energy will solve the problem of greenhouse gas emissions, however,
is doubtful. Power generation accounts for about 40 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, and
transportation accounts for another 25 percent. Even optimistic scenarios of nuclear power expansion
do not foresee a much-larger share for nuclear energy in overall electricity generation because, simply,
electricity generation is forecasted to double by 2030.[16]
Nuclear energy is emission free, while coal and oil pollute the environment
H. Sterling Burnett, senior fellow for the National Center for Policy Analysis, “Nuclear Power Making a
Comeback,” NCPA E-Team Project, May 5, 2005. <http://www.eteam.ncpa.org/commentaries/nuclear-power-
making-worldwide-comeback> [HBP]
In addition to cost considerations, other concerns, including energy security and environmental impact, make
nuclear plants a critical component of a diverse electric power system. For every megawatt hour (mwh)
of electricity produced, nuclear power plants produce no sulfur dioxide or nitrogen oxide emissions.
Coal-fired plants produce 13 pounds of sulfur dioxide and 6 pounds of nitrogen oxides; oil-fired
generators produce 12 pounds of sulfur dioxide and 4 pounds of nitrogen oxides; and natural gas-fired
plants produce 0.1 pound of sulfur dioxide and 1.7 pounds of nitrogen oxides. Spurred by the Kyoto Protocol,
the European Union has committed to cut its emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) by 8 percent below 1990 levels. European leaders have
determined they need to increase rather than decrease the percentage and absolute amount of nuclear-generated electricity if they are to
have a chance of meeting that goal. Nuclear power plants emit no CO2. By comparison, for every mwh of
energy produced, coal-fired power plants produce 2,249 pounds of CO2, oil-fired power plants produce
1,672 pounds, and gas-fired power plants produce 1,135 pounds.
Nuclear plants release no emissions or radiation pollution

Whereas coal burning creates large amounts of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, nuclear power
generation emits none. The reason that nuclear power plants produce no air pollutants when
generating power is that in a nuclear power plant, nothing is burned; the heat used to spin the turbines
and drive the generators comes from the natural decay of the radionuclides in the fuel. It is the
burning of fossil fuels, and particularly coal, that causes air pollution from electric power plants. Nor
does a nuclear power plant pollute its surroundings with dangerous radiation, as its opponents often imply. The population
exposure from the normal operation of nuclear power plants is far lower than exposure from natural
sources. "The civilian nuclear power fuel cycle, involving mining, fuel fabrication, and reactor operation, contributes a negligible dose
[of radiation] to the general public." Life cycle air pollutant emissions from nuclear plants are comparable to
those of the wind, solar, and hydro facilities - in other words, minimal. Concern is sometimes raised
about the possibility of releases of large amounts of radiation from an accident at a nuclear power
plant. In the four decades of commercial power plant operation in the United States, such a release has
never occurred. The only serious accident at a commercial nuclear reactor in the United States caused
no radiation damage to people outside the plant and little environmental damage.
WNDI 2008 87
Nuclear Power Aff
A2: Warming/Climate
Nuclear facilities emit no greenhouse gases
The use of nuclear fuel to generate electricity causes no emissions of greenhouse gases. As of 2003, nuclear
power accounted for 69% of the carbon-free generation in the United States. Even if the full life cycle of a nuclear power
plant is calculated, the emissions of greenhouse gases are negligible. The avoidance of greenhouse gas
emissions has been a major factor in converting some prominent environmentalists to the support of
new nuclear reactor construction. Many companies in the United States now recognize the need to
factor in the potential cost of complying with future greenhouse gas regulations in evaluating power
plant proposals, and some of the countries that have agreed to comply with the Kyoto protocol on the reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions are looking at nuclear power as a way to facilitate compliance.
Nuclear materials are much more accessible and cleaner than coal
The mining of uranium admittedly can create some of the same adverse ecological impacts as the mining of
coal. The difference, however, is that while the coal-fired power plants in the United States used slightly
over a billion tons of coal in 2005, nuclear power plants used only 66 million pounds of uranium oxide.
Thus the scale of the impact from uranium mining is not in the same ball park as the impact of coal
mining. Virtually all uranium mines currently operating in the United States are underground mines
or use the in situ leaching method, which both have much less impact on the environment than open pit
uranium mining. Moreover, coal-fired power plants produce half the electricity in the United States
while nuclear power plants produce one-fifth. In addition, unlike coal, uranium used in power plants
can be recycled and used again. At the present time, the United States does not reprocess its nuclear
fuel, but countries such as Great Britain, France, Japan, and Russia do so on a regular basis. The
policy issues related to reprocessing are beyond the scope of this article, but it should be noted that the
possibility of future reprocessing further reduces the slim risk that supplies of uranium will run out,
despite the fact that the known uranium resources would provide enough fuel to support four times the
current amount of worldwide nuclear electricity generation for the next 80 years. Furthermore, uranium
is not the only element that can be used as nuclear fuel; India is producing nuclear fuel from thorium, of
which it has ample supplies.
WNDI 2008 88
Nuclear Power Aff
FYI: Nuclear Reactors
FYI: How Nuclear Reactors Work

Nuclear reactors are supported by uranium mining, milling, conversion, enrichment, and fuel fabrication. Almost 90 percent of the
world’s reactors are light-water reactors (LWRs), requiring low-enriched uranium for fuel. Uranium resources are available across the
globe, although Australia and Canada account for more than one-half of current production and more than 90 percent of reserves. Other
key producers include Kazakhstan, Namibia, Niger, Russia, South Africa, the United States, and Uzbekistan. Although many countries
may have uranium on their territory, the costs of extracting it could exceed the benefits for quite some time, particularly if it is of lower
quality or quantity. To be fabricated into fuel, the uranium must be converted into uranium hexafluoride. Four companies currently
account for 88 percent of the conversion market: Rosatom (Russia), COMURHEX (France), ConverDyn (United States) and Cameco
(Canada). Additionally, Brazil, China, Iran, and the United Kingdom operate uranium-conversion plants. Uranium enrichment, the next
step in fuel fabrication, is conducted by four major enrichment suppliers, accounting for 95 percent of the market: Tenex (Russia);
Eurodif (France); Urenco (France, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom); and the U.S. Enrichment Corp., or USEC (United States).
Other countries also have enrichment capability, although not all are commercial: Brazil (in commissioning stage), China and India
(military), Iran (under construction), and Japan and Pakistan (military). Commercial capacity has exceeded
demand for many years. Demand for enrichment was 38 million separative work units in 2004 while production totaled 50 million
separative work units.[6] Although the IAEA estimates that enrichment capacity is sufficient for projected nuclear energy growth until
2030, other estimates suggest that substantial reactor orders would require “heroic efforts” to expand uranium mining and enrichment.[7]
In addition, 16 countries have fuel fabrication plants, which take enriched uranium and process it into a form (fuel rods) that can be
inserted into reactors. Four companies account for 84 percent of the market: AREVA (France), Westinghouse (United States), Global
Nuclear Fuel (Japan and the United States), and TVEL (Russia).[8] Spent fuel is either stored or reprocessed. Reprocessing uses
mechanical and chemical processes to extract plutonium, uranium, and waste products from spent nuclear fuel. Currently, the plutonium
is combined with
uranium to form a mixed-oxide fuel, which can also be used in LWRs. About one-third of the existing stored spent fuel has been
reprocessed. Worldwide, four primary commercial facilities reprocess plutonium from spent fuel for further power production: La Hague
and Marcoule in France, Sellafield in the United Kingdom, and Chelyabinsk-65/Ozersk in Russia.[9] These four plants reprocess about
95 percent of all commercial spent fuel that undergoes the process. Belgium, Germany, Japan, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and
Switzerland have been the main customers of the British and French plants. Russia has reprocessed spent fuel from Finland, Hungary,
and Ukraine. The Sellafield thermal oxide reprocessing plant closed in April 2005 after a leakage occurred and may reopen in mid-
2007.[10] Japan has been reprocessing at the small-scale Tokai pilot plant since the 1970s, but the large-scale (800-ton capacity per year)
Rokkasho-mura plant has been delayed for decades; it may begin operations this year. India, which is not a party to the nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), has three small reprocessing plants. Only one of these,
PREFRE, is partially safeguarded. Other states have current or past reprocessing capabilities, including the United States, which
reprocessed fuel for weapons purposes and, for a short time, commercial purposes. The current reprocessing capacity worldwide is about
5,000 tons of heavy metal per year. In the 1970s, the United Kingdom and France anticipated scaling up reprocessing capacity to move
to a plutonium-based fuel cycle, including the use of plutonium fuel in fast reactors. This has not yet materialized. Fast reactors, unlike
the
prevalent thermal reactors that use a moderator to slow down neutrons, are capable of fissioning a wider range of isotopes and thus can
be used to “burn up” more isotopes in fuel. No state has been able yet to commercialize such reactors.[11] Given their reported expense
and the relative inexpensive cost of uranium, there have been few economic incentives to move forward. Belgium and Germany, for
instance, have stopped sending their fuel for reprocessing in anticipation of phasing out their use of nuclear power.

Aff Nuclear Power Scholars 85

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aff Nuclear Power Scholars 85

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WNDI 2008 1

Nuclear Power Aff

Nuclear Power Aff

No nuke power – decommission in 50 years............................................................................................................22

Coal Advantage-Laundry List .................................................................................................................................42

Yes peak coal – rapid use..........................................................................................................................................62

A2: Uranium Supply.................................................................................................................................................80

Advantage one: peak coal

<HEINBERG CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE 2/2>

Advantage – coal – warming

Advantage – coal – warming

Advantage – coal – economy

Sub-point __ is the economy:

Economic decline causes global nuclear war

Advantage – nuclear power – cred/heg

U.S. credibility is key to heg

Leadership is essential to prevent global nuclear exchange

Advantage – nuclear power – isotopes

Advantage – nuclear power – isotopes

Advantage – nuclear power – isotopes

Advantage – nuclear power – comp/heg

Competitiveness key to maintain a military that discourages any challengers

Leadership is essential to prevent global nuclear exchange

No nuke power – not enough energy

Nuclear Energy isn’t used nearly as much as other energy sources

No nuke power – decommission in 50 years

No nuke power – development abroad

No nuke power – no planned reactors

No nuke power – laundry list

Yes global nuke power

Nuke power needed – electricity demand

Nuke power needed – conversation fails

Nuke power needed – coal coming

Consumers see coal as an alternative to oil as prices soar

Nuke power good – electricity – more efficient

Nuclear Energy is attractive for several reasons

Nuke power good – warming

Nuke power good – laundry list

Nuke power good – laundry list

Nuke power good- environment

Loan Guarantees good – more $ needed

Loan guarantee caps are stopping progress of civilian nuclear development

American companies need loan guarantees for nuclear energy facilities

Loan guarantees good

Loan guarantees good

The US has created policies to stop proliferation, but could do more

The US has programs that control the spread of technology

Proliferation- tech causes spread

Empirically, US Civilian Nuclear Programs stop Proliferation

Civilian nuclear energy programs do not increase nuclear proliferation

Coal Advantage-Laundry List

Coal burning releases mass amounts toxic

Coal plants release different hazardous chemicals

Coal Advantage- Kills Fish

Coal Advantage-Acid Rain

Coal Advantage- Acid Rain

Acid rain hurts the environment and cost millions of dollars

Coal Advantage- Uranium

Coal releases hazardous Uranium into our environment

Nuclear power saves lives will coal kills

Coal Advantage- Green House Gases

Coal major green house contributor

Coal Advantage- Mercury

Coal Burning releases Mercury